Leadership and Job SatisfactionBy Stephanie L. Brooke, PhDVolume 4 - Issue 1Feb 13, 2007 - 4:16:55 PM

Email   this   article  Printer   friendly   page

INTRODUCTION

Job satisfaction is an extensively researched topic (Allen, Drevs, & Ruhe, 1999; Kleinman, 2004; Robbins, 1998; Spector, 1997; Yukl, 1998). Of particular interest is the relationship between leadership style and job

satisfaction. For the individual, job dissatisfaction can result in feelings of helplessness, burnout,

resentment, anger, and fatigue (Knoop, 1987; Wilkinson & Wagner, 1993). Further, these emotions

can lead to the following behaviors: aggression, regression, complaining, fighting, psychological

withdrawal, and leaving the agency (Knoop, 1987; Wilkinson & Wagner, 1993). With these emotions and

behaviors, poor physical and mental health may ensue. From a management perspective, these

emotions can lead to decreased employee performance, tardiness, absenteeism, turnover, early

retirements, and strikes (Ribelin, 2003; Robbins, 1998).

While understanding the reasons for changing employment are critical for organizations, discerning the relationship of leadership style on job satisfaction is of paramount concern. Working with a leader who

does not provide support, show consideration, or engages in hostile behaviors can be stressful for employees (Wilkinson & Wagner, 1993). Negative

leader-employee interactions can result in decreased pleasure with work, questioning one’s skill on the job, reacting harshly to the leader, and leaving the agency

(Chen & Spector, 1991). The quality of the leader-employee relationship has an impact on the

employee’s self-esteem (Brockner, 1988; DeCremer, 2003) and job satisfaction (Chen & Spector, 1991). The

costs to the agency can be quite high in terms of worker stress, reduced productivity, increased

EMPIRICAL

RESEARCH

Latest Headlines

Resident Block-rotation in Clinical Teaching Improves Student Learning

Full-day Kindergarten: Ontario

Kolb’s experiential learning as a critical frame for reflective practice

No Child Left Behind: School Processes Associated with Positive Changes, Collaborative Partnership, and Principal Leadership

Leadership in Tunisian Higher Education from the Perspective of the EFQM Excellence Model

Teachers Identify and Support At-Risk Gifted Students

Language and Care: Tensions for Japanese Teachers and Foreign Students in Japanese Schools

Paying students for grades: Is it sustainable and should it be?

CONSISTENCY

absenteeism, and turnover (Keashly, Trott, & MacLean, 1994; Ribelin, 2003).

Considerate leaders, also known as expressive leaders because they show concern for people, have been

found to facilitate a group with higher productivity and higher performance (Singh, 1998). In addition,

leadership consideration (expressive leadership) is more conducive to job satisfaction (Singh & Pestonjee,

1974; Spector, 1985). On the other side of the coin, task structured leaders, also known as instrumental leaders, show less concern for employees and are

high on initiating structure. “Leader behavior characterized as high on initiating structure led to

greater rates of grievances, absenteeism, and turnover and lower levels of job satisfaction for workers

performing routine tasks” (Robbins, 1998, p. 350).

Despite the fact that leadership has been a widely researched topic (Bass, 1990; Fiedler & Chemers,

1982; Field, 2002; Robbins, 1998; Ruvolo, Petersen, & LeBoeuf, 2004; Yukl, 1998; Zaleznick, 1992), very little

attention has been directed toward the relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction in

nonprofit agencies. To date, research has focused on for-profit industries and the military (Bass, 1985; Hater & Bass, 1988; Waldman, Bass, & Einstein, 1987). The problem that this pilot study addresses is leadership style, a consideration (expressive) orientation, and structured (instrumental) orientation, in relation to employee job satisfaction in the nonprofit arena.

With respect to child care organizations, the turnover rate, a reflection of job dissatisfaction, ranges from 30-50% per year (Ramsburg & Montanelli, 1999). This rate is alarmingly high, especially when compared to the annual turnover rate of 7% among elementary school

teachers (Whitebook & Bellm, 1999). The consequences of dissatisfied child care workers is that

they develop an intent to leave the job. The consequences are high in terms of the impact on the

OF OCCUPATIONAL CHOICE BETWEEN COUNSELLED AND UNCOUNSELLED SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS IN NORTHERN CROSS RIVER STATE

GLOBALISATION, GOOD GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY: THE INTERFACE

organization as well as the children and families involved with the center. The evidence is quite

extensive indicating that the high turnover rate of child care workers is a threat to quality care of children

(Todd & Deery-Schmitt, 1996). For instance, child care centers with high turnover have higher rates of

children being more aggressive with peers, more withdrawn, and spending more time unoccupied (Cost,

Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team, 1995; Manlove & Guzell, 1997). On the other hand, children

who experience stability in the quality of care they receive demonstrate more secure attachments, higher complexity of play, higher language development, and

higher school achievement (Todd & Deery-Schmitt, 1996). Child care worker job satisfaction is more of a

concern today, as the recent changes in welfare programs will result in greater numbers of children

needing quality child care.

Although the relationship between concern for employees and job satisfaction is not always clear,

research in this area generally indicates that consideration is more highly related to satisfaction

than a task structured style of leadership (Wilkerson & Wagner, 1993). Given that much of what is known of the impact of leadership style comes from studies of for-profit agencies, the purpose of this research is to

focus on the influence of leadership style on employee job satisfaction in one nonprofit arena, the child care industry. Some current issues in the quality of child

care services involve the shortage of highly qualified directors and leaders (Borge, Hartman, & Strom, 1996; Whitebook & Sakai, 2003). Thus, leadership style can

directly affect not only employee satisfaction and growth, but also the well being of the children and families. Job dissatisfaction and transition issues

caused by turnover will lead to poor quality of care and may negatively affect children’s growth and

development. This research examined the impact of the director’s leadership style, consideration

orientation, and structure orientation, on child care worker job satisfaction on a global level as well as

satisfaction with supervision.

The objective of this research is to understand the impact of leadership style on employee job

satisfaction in an effort to improve leader-employee relations in nonprofit child care settings. Since

turnover rates, separation costs, vacancy costs, and training costs are high in child care centers (Vickers,

2002), providing strategies for increasing job satisfaction will lead to a more stable environment for

children and their families, promote positive leader member relations, and strengthen the organizational

climate. Since leadership style can critically influence employee satisfaction, this study is of significant

importance in promoting social change. Specifically, it focuses on a unique industry, nonprofit child care

agencies, a little researched area in terms of

leadership style.

This research is valuable in terms of providing recommendations for child care leadership training programs, another social change component. Since

leadership style in relation to job satisfaction in nonprofit agencies has not received much attention in professional literature, this pilot study adds to the field of organizational psychology by providing research on this unique setting and distinguishes it from studies of

leadership style based in for-profit or military organizations. Understanding the relationship between the director’s leadership style on child care workers’ job satisfaction may lead to a stronger organizational

climate, reduce turnover, engender greater trust of children and their families, promote positive child

development, and provide for a stronger fiscal base for the agency.

METHODOLOGY

The pilot study sample was obtained through the leadership committee of the Early Childhood

Education Quality Council (ECEQC in Rochester, New York. After getting permission from the ECEQC chair

to talk to the members, affiliated directors were contacted. The directors, in turn, gave permission to

use their center and respective employees as a research site. Ten out of 24 centers agreed to

participate in the study (42%); however, two centers were dropped from the study because they changed

director leadership, leaving eight centers participating in the study. The LOQ, JSS, and demographic data

sheets were administered during a weekly staff meeting and collected. The data was extracted and

recorded in Excel, and subsequently reduced. Additionally, the data was analyzed using Excel

functions and SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 11.0.

Center Directors. The directors from the participating

centers completed the LOQ and the demographic data sheet. The average age of the director sample was

44.4, with a range of 31 to 56 years. All participating directors were White females with college degrees. Per the requirement of this research, the directors worked for their respective child care center for at least three

years. The average number of years directing child care centers was 10.86 with a range of 3 to 32 years.

The education and credentials of the directors as well as the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAYEC) accreditation status of their center

are listed in Table 2.

Table 2 Director Credentials and NAYEC Accreditation Status

Child care Workers. From the participating centers, there were a total of 97 child care workers who

volunteered to complete the JSS. The total sample of child care workers was 174, which gives a return rate

of 56% (three surveys were not included as the information was not completed on the reverse side of

the JSS form). The average age of the child care workers was 36 years with a range of 18 to 83 years. Of the sample of child care workers, 46% were Black, 38%

were White, 14% were Hispanic, and 1% were Asian and Other. Table 3-A summarizes the child care worker demographic data of all child care workers employed

at the participating centers.

Table 3-A

Child care Worker Demographic Data by Center

 

Center 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

# Workers 18 20 29 24 16 10 21 40

# Sampled 7 7 17 11 6 5 8 33

% of Total 38.4 3.5 58.6 45.8 37.5 50.0 38.1 82.5

Avg. Age 45.2 33.3 32.7 38.1 37.6 30.2 34.3 30.4

White 9 2 4 5 16 0 14 10

Black 3 15 22 14 0 3 3 20

Center 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Degree MA BA BS CDA MA MA BS MA

Major Early Child

Elm.

Ed.

Psyc.

& BioEarly Child

Cult.

& Pol.Admin Nursing

Cult.

& Pol

.

Accred. Yes Yes Applied Unk. Yes Unk. No Yes

Hispanic 6 3 2 5 0 1 2 10

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Of the child care workers from the participating centers, 50% had their high school diploma, 24% had

their bachelor’s degree, 14% had their associate’s degree, 8% had their CDA (Child Development

Associate), and 4% had their master’s degree. The people that work in the child care industry do not

reflect the regular education industry where everyone has at least a bachelor’s degree (NCES, 1996). Table 3-B summarizes the child care worker educational data.

Table 3-B

Child care Worker Education Demographic Data by Center

 

Results and Data Analyses

Descriptive Statistics. This section contains the descriptive statistics and analyses of the areas of

focus that were the subject of the research questions

Center 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total %

High School 7 5 13 5 18 16 2 23 89 50

Associates 1 2 3 5 2 2 3 7 25 14

CDA 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 18 8

Bachelors 4 1 6 6 6 1 7 4 35 24

Masters 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 0 7 4

Total 17 8 23 16 27 20 21 42 174 100

in this study. Descriptive analyses were conducted to clarify relationships between the LOQ scales and JSS global scores and supervision subscale scores of the JSS. Table 4 presents a summary of the descriptive

statistics on these dimensions.

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics of LOQ and JSS Results

Based on LOQ normative data for directors (Fleishman, 1996), consideration scores of 53.2 and above were classified as being high consideration (HC), while those below were characterized as low

consideration (LC). Structure scores of 47.9 and above were classified as being high structure (HS), while

those below were characterized as low structure (LS). For this study, the mean LOQ score for directors was

53.1, generally indicating that on the average, the directors were high consideration, in fact, five out of eight directors fell above the cutoff score of 53.2. The

mean structure score was 38.6, indicating that the directors were low in structure, with seven out of the eight directors classified as low in structure. Table 5

lists the LOQ scores by center.

Table 5

LOQ Scores by Center

Source n Mean SD Maximum Minimum

LOQ Consideration 8 54.39 4.94 60 42

LOQ Structure 8 37.04 6.10 50 28

JSS Global Score 94 135.61 24.48 187 66

JSS Supervisor Score 94 18.28 5.05 24 5

Based on the cutoff scores, no center director had a high consideration, high structure (HC-HS) leadership

style. The director from Center #7 had a leadership style that was low in consideration and high in

structure (LC-HS: 12.5% of the sample). The directors from Centers #2 and 6 had leadership styles

characterized by low consideration and low structure (LC-LS: 25% of the sample). Most directors (Centers #

1, 3, 4, 5, 8) had a style characterized by high consideration and low structure. The HC-LS style characterized 62.5% of the sample of directors. In

Table 6, the centers are broken down based on the consideration and structure dimensions.

Table 6

Break-out of Centers on Consideration and Structure Dimensions

Center Consideration Structure Style

1 60 28 HC-LS

2 42 45 LC-LS

3 54 37 HC-LS

4 56 33 HC-LS

5 60 47 HC-LS

6 48 35 LC-LS

7 48 50 LC-HS

8 57 34 HC-LS

Mean LOQ 53.1 38.6 LC-LS

Range 42-60 28-50

SD 4.94 6.10

Variable High Consideration Low Consideration

High Structure

None (0%) Center 7 (12.5%)

Low Structure Centers 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 (62.5%) Centers 2, 6 (25%)

Fisher’s Exact Test. Given that the requirement of the Chi Square Test was not met, Fisher’s Exact Test was

used to determine if there was a pattern to the leadership styles among the center directors (Agresti

& Finlay, 1986). No significant patterns emerged for the directors participating in the study on consideration and structure (p<.38). Table 7 outlines the results of

Fisher’s Exact Test.

Table 7

Fisher’s Exact Test of Leadership Style

Value df Asym. Sig. 2-sided Exact Sig. 2-sided

1.91 1 -.17

.08 1 .78

1 .14

.38

8

Chi Square Analysis. Given that there appeared to be a grouping of LOQ scores for high versus low structure,

a Chi Square analysis was completed. There was a trend in that significantly more directors were low

structure as compared to high structure (p<.03). The proportion of high versus low consideration scores

was not significance (p<.48). Table 8 lists the Chi Square results.

Table 8

Chi Square Results of Leadership Style

Variable Consideration Structure

Chi-Square .50 4.50

df 1 1

Asymp. Sig. .48 .03

Research Question 1: The question asked if there was a relationship between the consideration and structure

scales on the LOQ. To determine the relationship between consideration and structure, a multiple

correlational analysis was applied to all variables. There was a significant negative correlation between

leadership consideration and leadership structure (r = -.585, n = 94, p<.01). This indicates that as

consideration goes up, structure goes down. Given the small sample size (N=8), a bivariate correlational

analysis was run on the consideration and structure LOQ scores. The resulting correlation between these

two variables was not significant (r=-.458, n=8, p<.253).

Research Questions 2-5: Questions 2 through 5 examine the impact of leader consideration and

structure on the LOQ and JSS global job satisfaction and satisfaction with supervision scores. The analysis for each of the research questions is listed as follows:

Leadership Style and Global Job Satisfaction. Questions 2 and 4 examine the influence of leadership

consideration and structure scores (LOQ) on global job satisfaction scores (JSS). The second question ascertains if there is a relationship between a child

care director’s consideration style, as determined by the LOQ, and the child care workers’ level of job

satisfaction, as determined by the global score on the JSS. To test the relationship between the director’s

consideration leadership style and the child care

workers’ overall job satisfaction, a Pearson bivariate correlational analysis was conducted with these two variables. There was no significant correlation. This

means that there is no apparent relationship between a director’s global job satisfaction and consideration as

measured by the JSS and LOQ, respectively.

The fourth research question asks if there is a relationship between a child care director’s leadership structure orientation, as determined by the LOQ, and

the child care workers’ level of job satisfaction, as determined by the global score on the JSS. To test the

relationship between the director’s structure orientation and the child care workers’ global job

satisfaction, a Pearson bivariate correlational analysis was conducted with these two variables. There was a

significant positive correlation between leadership structure and global job satisfaction (r = .597, n = 94,

p<.01). This appears to indicate that a director’s leadership structure and the child care workers’ global job satisfaction are positively correlated—that as the director’s leadership structure score increases, the

child care worker’s level of job satisfaction increases. Table 9 lists the correlations between LOQ Factors and

JSS Factors.

Table 9

Correlations between LOQ Factors and JSS Factors

Variable LOQ Consideration LOQ Structure

JSS Global Job Satisfaction

-.124 .597 **

JSS Supervisor Satisfaction -.070 .207 *

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

* Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)

Leadership Style and Satisfaction with Supervision.

Questions 3 and 5 examine the influence of leadership consideration structure scores (LOQ) on satisfaction

with supervision (JSS). Specifically, question 3 asks if there is a relationship between a child care director’s leadership consideration style, as determined by the LOQ, and the child care workers’ level of supervisor

job satisfaction, as determined by the supervisor subscale score on the JSS. To test the relationship

between the director’s consideration leadership style and the child care worker’s satisfaction with

supervision, a Pearson bivariate correlational analysis was conducted with these two variables. There was no

significant correlation. As above, this reveals that there is no apparent relationship between the directors’ consideration and satisfaction with supervision as measured by the LQQ and JSS

respectively.

The fifth question asks if there is a relationship between a child care director’s structure orientation,

as determined by the LOQ, and the child care workers’ level of supervisor job satisfaction, as determined by the supervisor subscale score on the JSS. To test the

relationship between the director’s structure orientation and the child care workers’ satisfaction with supervision, a Pearson bivariate correlational analysis was conducted with these two variables.

There was a significant positive correlation between leadership structure and satisfaction with supervision (r = .207, n = 94, p<.05). This appears to indicate that a director’s leadership structure and child care workers’ satisfaction with supervision are positively correlated

—that as the director’s leadership structure score increases, the child care workers’ level of job

satisfaction increases.

One Way ANOVA and Post-Hoc Analyses. An analysis of variance was conducted on job satisfaction between the one center that had a director with high structured leadership and the other center directors who were low

on structure. There were significant difference in the mean difference on the scores global job satisfaction (p<.001) and satisfaction with supervision (p<.003).

Table 10-A and 10-B list the ANOVA results for global job satisfaction and satisfaction with supervision.

Table 10-A

ANOVA Results for JSS Global Job Satisfaction

Source SS df MS F P value F

Between 13418.12 7 1916.87 4.31 0.0001 2.13

Within 35167.85 79 445.16

Total 48585.96 86

Table 10-B

ANOVA Results for JSS Satisfaction with Supervision

Source SS df MS F P value F

Between 546.66 7 78.09 3.50 0.0003 2.13

Within 1740.37 78 22.31

Total 2287.02 85

Since the one-way analysis of variance revealed significant differences between the child care centers

on satisfaction with supervision, a post-hoc t-test between centers was conducted between Center 7 (LC-HS), the only center with a director high on structure, and the remaining center directors, who were low on leadership structure (LS). The first set of post hoc t-

tests were conducted on the JSS global job satisfaction scores, using Center 7 and comparing it

systematically to the remaining centers. No significant differences emerged. The second set of post hoc t-

tests examined the satisfaction with supervision

scores, using Center 7 and comparing it systematically to the remaining centers. One significant difference emerged. Since direction was not predicted in the

research questions and in keeping with the consistency of previous assessment criteria, a two-tailed t-test was performed. There was a significant

difference between Center 7 (LC-HS) and Center 5 (HC-LS), (t=2.31, df=8, p<. 003).

Given that two independent evaluations of the data were conducted utilizing unequal samples, a

Bonferroni adjustment was performed post-hoc for further evaluation of the finding that was statistically

significant. Using an adjusted alpha level .01, the findings for the procedure related to the criterion variable of satisfaction with supervision, which

previously resulted in findings of statistical significance, was examined. With a p<. 003 and a t

value of 3.36, the significant difference between Center 7 (LC-HS) and Center 5 (HC-LS) was supported.

Regression Analysis. The use of a regression approach offers the most comprehensive examination of the research variables and is most appropriate for a speculative study such as the one at hand. Using the enter method, a significant model did not emerge (F = 2.242, p < .112). The adjusted R square = .022 with a

standard error of estimate – 24.21 (The model accounts for 2% of the variance in leadership style).

The results of the regression analysis are listed Table 11.

Table 11

Regression Analysis for Consideration and Structure

With the regression analysis, using structure and consideration together were not significant in

predicting overall job satisfaction. When analyzing structure and consideration by themselves, neither

was significant at the .05 level, although consideration was close with p<.056. Even though some

relationships were significant, they did not account for much in the way of the total amount of variability with regard to leadership in attempt to identify a “model”

regarding leadership style.

Leadership structure did significantly predict satisfaction with supervision at the .05 level (p<.027).

Additionally, there was a significant relationship between the JSS satisfaction subscale and the global score on the JSS, indicating that the satisfaction with supervision is one of the larger issues making up the

global score for the JSS. Table 12 summarizes the multivariate analysis.

Table 12

Multivariate Regression Analysis for Consideration and Structure

Source Unstandardized Coefficents Stand. Coeff. t Sig.

B St. Error Beta

Constant 232.06 47.66 4.86 .00

Consideration -1.21 .627 -.25 -1.93 .056

Structure -.825 .508 -.21 -1.62 .11

Pearson Product Analysis. The relationship between the consideration and structure scores from the LOQ

and the global score and satisfaction with supervision scores on the JSS was examined using a Pearson

Product Moment correlation test. A significant relationship was found for the structure leadership

style as measured by the LOQ and global satisfaction and satisfaction with supervision as measured by the JSS. Table 12 summarizes the correlation between the LOQ factors and the JSS factors. Please refer back to Table 9 for the correlations between LOQ Factors and

JSS Factors. This concludes the analysis for the research questions posed in this study.

DISCUSSION

Due to the lack of research on the topic of leadership style and the influence on employee job satisfaction in

nonprofit agencies, a series of research questions were posed. Specifically, this research effort was designed to explore the influence of leadership

consideration and structure orientations on employee job satisfaction in nonprofit, child care agencies. Although the results of this study did not provide

support for the influence of leadership consideration on employee job satisfaction, it did provide mild significant results on the influence of leadership structure on employee job satisfaction, both on a global level and satisfaction with supervision sub

level.

High quality child care contributes to a child’s

Source Unstandardized Coeff. Stand. Coeff. t Sig.

B St. Error Beta

Constant 6.21 9.81 .63 .53

Consideration 7.93 .13 .08 .62 .54

Structure .21 .10 .25 2.00 .048

development, socially, cognitively, and emotionally (Todd & Deery-Schmitt, 1996); therefore, it is not

surprising that the problem of employee job satisfaction is critical in terms of providing quality

(Deery-Schmitt & Todd, 1995). Given that turnover is higher in nonprofit organizations that offer low wages,

job dissatisfaction and turnover in human service agencies, particularly child care providers, is

problematic in that it potentially compromises child development (Whitebook & Sakai, 2003). The literature

shows that it is very young children who are most vulnerable to the effects of poor quality child care

(Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children, 1994; Gnezda, 1996). With the growing need for child care services and investments by state and

other funding agencies (National Prekindergarten Program, 2004), the issue of job satisfaction is key to

maintaining and promoting quality child care programs.

The present research focused on two leadership factors: consideration and structure. These factors are important to leadership research and emerged out of the Ohio State Studies (Robbins, 1998). Leadership

consideration and leadership structure were measured using the Fleishman’s (1996) LOQ assessment that emerged out of the Ohio State Studies (Fleishman,

1996). Spector (1997) noted that job satisfaction does influence employee behavior, which, in turn,

influences organizational functioning. Job satisfaction was measured using Spector’s (1994) JSS.

Research Questions and Outcomes

Leadership Consideration and Structure. The relationship between leader consideration and

structure was mixed. A Pearson Product Moment correction analysis revealed that there was a

significant negative correlation between leadership consideration and leadership structure, indicating an inverse relationship existed. Given the small sample

size, a bivariate correlational analysis on the consideration and structure LOQ scores was

conducted. The resulting correlation between these two variables was not significant. The correlation

between consideration and structure has been a long-standing debate in the field (Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004). Much of the debate centers on the concerns

about the independence of these dimensions. Fleishman (1996) claims orthogonally of these dimensions, which suggests that leadership

consideration is independent of leadership structure. Although the literature notes that these scales should be independent, research does not always support the orthogonally of these dimensions of leadership (Bass, 1990; Weissenberg & Kavanagh, 1972). Yet, the LOQ is

one of the few measures that demonstrate low intercorrelations (Fleishman, 1996; Judge, Piccolo, &

Ilies, 2004). Additional research is needed on the independence of these dimensions of leadership.

A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference between leadership structure and global job

satisfaction as well as satisfaction with supervision. This difference was mild and did not account for much

of the variance. A post-hoc analysis revealed significant differences between leadership style and job satisfaction. Follow t-tests revealed a significant difference on satisfaction with supervision between the director of Center 7 (LC-HS) and the director of

Center 5 (HC-LS). As noted, the Bonferroni correction resulted in a highly significant finding related to the criterion variable of satisfaction with supervision,

between Center 7 and Center 5. It was of interest that the director of Center 7 had different credentials compared to other directors. She had a degree in nursing whereas the others had degrees in early

childhood education and administration. Center 7 could have been an outlier in the data, thus skewing

the sample. Future studies may want to consider education in relationship to structure and

consideration leadership style.

This largest grouping of directors was in the HC-LS category, a participative style of leadership. The

participative system is the ideal for the human service agencies, such as child care centers, and Likert (1961) states that all organizations should adopt this system. The participative style was also discussed by Hersey and Blanchard’s (1993) theory, in which leadership

was characterized by structure and supportive consideration behaviors. With this sample of directors,

62.5% had a participative style of leadership. Participating (HC-LS) styles indicate that the leader

and follower share in decision making, with the main role of the leader being facilitating and

communicating. Yet, significantly more child care workers were satisfied with the leader who was LC-HS,

which would equate with Hersey and Blanchard’s (1964) telling style of leadership. With the telling (LC-HS) style, the leader defines roles and directs people on what, how, when, and where to do various tasks. It emphasizes ordered behavior. According to Blake and

Mouton’s (1964) managerial grid, the majority of the directors in this study would be classified as country

club managers. Country Club Managers show a minimum concern for production (1) but maximum

concern for people. Even at the expense of achieving results, fostering good feelings gets primary attention. Yet, satisfaction with supervision was associated with

authority-obedience managing style. With the Authority-Obedience Manger, the maximum concern is

for production and is combined with a minimum concern for people. Counter the research trends in

profit and military organizations, child care workers in nonprofit centers were more satisfied with a director

who had a leadership style low on structure.

Leadership Consideration and Job Satisfaction. There was no significant correlation between leadership

consideration and global job satisfaction. This means

that there is no apparent relationship between this population of child care workers’ global job

satisfaction and the consideration leadership style of their director as measured by the JSS and LOQ. There

was no significant correlation between leader consideration and satisfaction with supervision. As

above, this reveals that there is no apparent relationship between the director’s consideration style

of leadership and supervisor job satisfaction as measured by the LQQ and JSS respectively. The lack

of significant differences may be due in part to the small number of directors participating in the study.

Leadership Structure and Job Satisfaction. There was a mild but significant positive correlation between

leadership structure and global job satisfaction. This appears to indicate that a director’s leadership

structure and child care workers’ global job satisfaction are positively correlated—that as the

director’s leadership structure score increases, the child care workers’ level of global job satisfaction

increases. In addition, there was a significant positive correlation between leadership structure and

supervisor job satisfaction.

With the regression analysis, using structure and consideration together was not significant in

predicting overall job satisfaction. When analyzing structure and consideration by themselves, neither

was significant, although consideration was close to reaching significance. Even though some relationships

are significant, they do not account for much in the way of the total amount of variability with regard to

leadership in attempt to identify a “model” regarding leadership style. On the other hand, leadership

structure did significantly predict satisfaction with supervision. Additionally, there was a significant

relationship between the JSS satisfaction subscale and the global score on the JSS, indicating that the

satisfaction with supervision is one of the larger

issues making up the global score for the JSS.

“When supervisors were perceived to initiate structure, set goals, assist with problem solving,

provide social and material support, and give feedback on job performance, their subordinates experienced lower ambiguity and uncertainty, and hence greater

satisfaction with their job” (O’Driscoll & Beehr, 1994, p. 152). This pilot study was exception to research trends in the literature since it provides support that is more positive for leaders initiating structure as opposed to

showing consideration for employees.

Summary of Discussion

The preceding discussion highlights the clarity, and the lack thereof, regarding the relationships between and among the variables. The points of clarity relate directly to the research questions. The first of these points is that leadership structure and satisfaction

with supervision were mildly but significantly correlated in this research sample. This outcome was surprising given the discussion of previous research

trends in profit organizations.

Child care workers’ perception of their director’s leadership style influenced their level of job

satisfaction. The link between a structured style and job satisfaction, which has important implications for

trainers of future child care directors as employee indicate a desire to have more structured leadership to

be satisfied with their jobs, and specifically satisfied with the supervision they receive.

This study implemented a widely used research technique, namely, the use of surveys. Although

surveys are important for predicting behavior, they do have their limitations. To maintain ethical standards, surveys were treated anonymously and confidentially in this study. People volunteered to participate, which makes this sample different from the larger population.

Since it was not required that the child care workers participate, the return rate was only 56%. This return rate was only 9% lower than the Hellman (1997) study

that surveyed teacher job satisfaction in relation to their principal’s leadership style and only 4% lower than the McKee (1991) study of college president

leadership style and faculty job satisfaction.

As noted in the preceding summary, the results of this research provided both clarity and uncertainty with regard to the relationships between and among the

variables. Much of the uncertainty was related in part to difficulties associated with the population sample. In addition, there was a great deal of variability in the sample. Given the small sample size, future studies may focus on expanding the number of participating

directors. Also, future studies could focus on the number of years of directing experience. This sample

had a great deal of variation with 3 to 32 range in years.

Further, all the participants in this study were female. Future research should determine if there are gender

differences with respect to job satisfaction and leadership style in nonprofit agencies, such as child care. For example, Bogler (2002) reported that female

teachers expressed greater job satisfaction as compared to their male counterparts. There are few

studies on employee job satisfaction, which examine the relationship between job satisfaction and teacher demographic characteristics. Personal demographic

characteristics can be examined in more detail, particularly the relationship between education level,

length of employment, and need for structure leadership style.

In order to determine the relationship of leadership structure needs for people newly hired, the length of

employment for each employee should be recorded for future research efforts. Additionally, this information

would lend itself well to a study of the relationship

between job satisfaction and turnover with respect to leadership style. Given that the turnover rate is high in child care centers, with ranges from 30-50% per year (Ramsburg & Montanelli, 1999), many new employees

are hired each year. A question that remains to be answered is if it is the newer employees who need a

structured leadership style in order to be satisfied their jobs and level of supervision.

The present research focused only on the analysis of the current leadership conditions and satisfaction

levels within eight child care centers. Further, it focused on one exogenous factor, leadership style, on child care worker job satisfaction. Other factors can be considered such organizational variables, center size,

accreditation, school location, and religious affiliations

An elemental risk for a correlational approach is that some variable or variables other than those under consideration may be responsible for the obtained

relationship (Wood, 1974). There are extraneous factors to consider when discussing the impact of

leadership style on job satisfaction and turnover. For instance, the experience level of the employee may be a moderator on preference for leadership style. Russ

and McNeilly (1995) stated that experience has a direct relationship to turnover and organizational

commitment. Further, experience may moderate relationships such as perceptions, attitudes, and

behavior. New employees will “be more sensitive and display stronger reactions to work-related variables

such as leadership behavior and role stress than their longer-tenured counterparts” (Johnston, et al., 1989, p. 272). Except for supervisor consideration, the impact will decline as employees learn about their job duties, solidify attitudes toward the organization, and become

more independent (Russ & McNeilly, 1995). Satisfaction with immediate supervisors will have

more impact on the organizational commitment of less experienced employees than more seasoned workers.

What is needed is longitudinal research which will follow several centers, their leaders, and their child

care workers over a period of several years, such the 2 year longitudinal study with 57 family child care providers conducted by Todd and Deery-Schmitt

(1996). These longitudinal studies can focus on job satisfaction as it relates to job turnover, position

turnover, and occupational turnover.

A comparison of profit and nonprofit child care centers with respect to the variables considered in this

research is needed. Do leadership styles differ in for-profit child care centers compared to the non profit

counterparts? The present study was exploratory and utilized a nonexperimental design, which was helped illuminate the relationship between the variables in

question. In order to ascertain causal relationships, an experimental design must be adopted. In keeping with

the current trends in leadership research, future studies in this arena should focus on the impact of

other leadership styles, such as transformational and on employee job satisfaction.

Implications for Social Change

The results imply social change effort at a broader level of nonprofit organizations. Leadership style is

critical in terms of an employee’s level of job satisfaction. By vicariously watching the leader,

employees attach meaning to the leader’s behavior and evaluate that in terms of his or her expectations of supervision. Thus, employees will use the evaluation

to determine satisfaction with supervision and satisfaction with the organization. The study of job

satisfaction is important given its effect on employee retention (Bogler, 2002).

Given the quality issues with respect to the shortage of highly qualified directors of child care agencies (Whitebook & Sakai, 2003), training issues must be

addressed. First, directors of child care centers need

to be aware of their leadership style and the relationship of style to employee job satisfaction. It

would appear that developing a leadership style high on consideration and high on structure is important for

increasing employee satisfaction (Bass, 1990). Research supports that when leaders change their definitions of leadership, job satisfaction increases

and turnover is decreased to near zero (Bissell & Beach, 1996). Specifically, if leaders are low in structure, they need training that focuses on increasing skill in planning, communicated

information, scheduling, and providing informative and constructive feedback to employees (Fleishman, 1996).

Training programs can also focus on strategies for improving employee retention, as suggestion by

Armour (2000). Specifically, directors need to have training on the attitudinal facets which lead to

dissatisfaction (Spector, 1997). Leaders should be trained to recognize aspects of the organizational climate which create uncertainty for employees, a

critical issue when bring a new employee on board. A telling style is going to be more effective for leaders to

adopt when working with new employees. When employees perceive their director as initiating

structure through setting goals, problem solving, and providing feedback on performance, employees were

more satisfied, experienced less strain, and the position was less likely to turnover (O’Driscoll &

Beehr, 1994). Director training can focus on the need for frequent assessment feedback for new employees.

Generally, the results of this research are relevant psychology as they pertain to relationship issues,

communication strategies, and attitudes developed by employees. Specifically, the results are relevant to

directors who wish to increase the job satisfaction of their employees as well as prevent turnover. The

results of the research can be disseminated in director training programs, thereby promoting social change

by focusing on the impact of leadership style on employee job satisfaction. In this exploratory study, a need for structured leadership was related to higher

global job satisfaction as well as satisfaction with supervision. Further, the results can contribute to

social change by examining the impact of leadership style in other nonprofit agencies having an

organizational structure similar to child care agencies. With the flux of change in nonprofit organizations, such as child care centers, the need for structure seems to be critical to employee job satisfaction,

particularly on satisfaction with supervision and has important implications for child care director training

programs.

References

Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1986). Statistical methods for the social sciences. San

Francisco, CA: Dellen Publishing Company.

Allen, W.R., Drevs, R.A., & Ruhe, J.A. (1999). Reasons why college educated women

change employment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(1), 77-93.

Armour, S. (2000, April 12). Bosses held liable for keeping workers. USA Today,

Money Section, p. 1.

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, &

management applications. New York: Free Press.

Bissell, B.L., & Beach, L.R. (1996). Supervision and job satisfaction. In decision

making in the workplace: A unified perspective. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbuam Associates.

Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Bogler, R. (2002). Two profiles of school teachers: A discriminant analysis of job

satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 665-673.

Borge, A.I., Hartman, E., & Strom. (1996). The Norwegian perspective on issue of

quality in day care. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(2), 129-137.

Brockner, J. (1988). Self esteem at work. Lexington, MA: D.C. Health and Company.

Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children (1994). Starting points:

Meeting the needs of our youngest children. New York: Carnegie Corporation

of New York.

Chen, P.Y., & Spector, P.E. (1991). Negatively affectivity as the underlying cause of

correlations between stressors and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 398-407.

DeCremer, D. (2003). Why inconsistent leadership is regarded as procedurally unfair:

The importance of social self-esteem concerns.

European Journal of Social

Psychology, 33(4), 535-550.

Fiedler, F.E., & Chemers, M.M. (1982). Improving leadership effectiveness. The leader

match concept. New York: John Wiley.

Field, R.H. (2002). Leadership defined: Web images reveal the differences between

leadership and management. Submitted to the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada 2002

annual meeting in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Retrieved

July 26, 2004 from http://www.bus.ualberta.ca/rfield/papers/LeadershipDef

ined.htm

Fleishman, E.A. (1996). Examiner’s manual for the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire

(LOQ). Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.

Gnezda, M.T. (1996). Welfare reform: Personal responsibilities and opportunities for

early childhood advocates. Young Children, 52(1), 55-58.

Hellman, C.M. (1997).Job satisfaction and intent to leave. Journal of Social Psychology,

137(6), 677-689.

Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. H. (1993) Management of organizational behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Johnston, M.W., Parasuraman, A., & Furtell, C.M.

(1989). Extending a model of

salesperson role perceptions and work related attitudes: Impact of job tenure. Journal of Business

Resources, 18, 269-290.

Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of

consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36-51.

Keashly, L., Trott, V., & MacLean, L.M. (1994). Abusive behavior in the workplace: A

preliminary investigation. Violence and Victims, 9(4), 341-357.

Kleinman, C.S. (2004). Leadership and retention: Research needed. Journal of Nursing

Administration, 34(3), 111-114.

Knoop, R. (1987, May-June). Causes of job dissatisfaction among teachers.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education. Hamilton,

Ontario, Canada.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

McKee, J.G. (1991). Leadership styles of community

college presidents and faculty job

satisfaction. Community/Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice, 15(1), 33-46

O’Driscoll, M.P., & Beehr, T.A. (1994). Supervisor behaviors, role stressors and

uncertainty as predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15,

141-155.

Ramsburg, D., & Montanelli, D. (1999). Child care salaries and staff turnover: The key

to child care quality. Springfield: Illinois Association for the Education of Young Children.

Ribelin, P.J. (2003). Retention reflects leadership style. Nursing Management, 34(8),

18-20.

Robbins, S.P. (1998). Organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Russ, F.A., & McNeilly, K.M. (1995). Links among, satisfaction, commitment, and

turnover intentions: The moderating effect of experience, gender, and performance. Journal of

Business Research, 34, 57-65.

Ruvolo, C.M., Petersen, S.A., & LeBoefu, J.N. (2004). Leaders are made, not born:

The critical role of a developmental framework to facilitate an organizational

culture of development. Consulting Psychology Journal, 56(1), 10-19.

Singh, A.P. (1998). Supervision and organizational effectiveness: Role conflict as a

moderator. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 24(1-2), 19-25.

Singh, A.P., & Pestonjee, D.M. (1974). Supervisory behavior and job satisfaction.

Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 9, 407-416.

Spector, P.E. (1994). Job Satisfaction Survey. Retrieved April 7, 2002 from

http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~spector/scales/jsspag.html

Spector, P.E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and

consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Todd, C.M., & Deery-Schmitt, D.M. (1996). Factors affecting turnover among family

child care providers: A longitudinal study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,

11, 351-376.

Vickers, P. (2002). (personal communication, April 18, 2002).

Weissenberg, P., & Kavanagh, M.J. (1972). The independence of initiating structure

and consideration: A review of the evidence. Personnel Psychology, 25, 119-130.

Wilkinson, A.D., & Wagner, R.M. (1993). Supervisory leadership styles and state

vocational rehabilitation counselor job satisfaction and productivity. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 37(1),

15 -24.

Whitebook, M., & Bellm, D. (1999). Taking on turnover: An action guide for child care

Center teachers and directors. Washington, DC: Center for Child Care

Workforce.

Whitebook, M., & Sakai, L. (2003). Turnover begets turnover: An examination of job

And occupational instability among child care center staff. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 18, 273-293.

Wood, G. (1974). Fundamentals of psychological research. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.

Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zaleznik, A. (1992; March/April). Managers and leaders: Are they different?

Harvard Business Review, 70(2), 126-135.

© Copyright 2007 by Academic Leadership

Top of Page

In 1994, Dr. Bell introduced The Bell Leadership Job Satisfaction Survey. This tool gives you an accurate understanding of what is happening in your organization. Through confidential processing and comprehensive results, organizations are immediately able to focus on the areas needing improvement to become more effective and reach a world-

class level. The Job Satisfaction Survey allows your organization to evaluate such things as:

Overall job satisfaction

Communication

Empowering participation

Morale, teamwork and effectiveness

Work design, ethics and equality of opportunity

Training and career opportunities

Dr. Bell’s work has been used by an astounding 500,000 leaders in more than 4,700 organizations and from over 85 countries. Organizations such as the Young Presidents Organization and the Chief Executives Organization call on him again and again for his practical, thought-provoking delivery. Over the years, thousands have enrolled in Dr. Bell’s open enrollment programs held in Chapel Hill or have sought his services for company programs, master classes and executive retreats

Leadership and Teamwork: The Effects of Leadership and JobSatisfaction on Team CitizenshipSeokhwa Yun1

Seoul National UniversityJonathan CoxHouston, TXHenry P. Sims, Jr.Sabrina SalamUniversity of Maryland

This study examined how leadership related to citizenship behavior within teams. Leadership was hypothesized to influence team organizational citizenship behavior (TOCB) either directly or indirectly through job satisfaction. Longitudinal data were collected in three waves. Leader behaviors were measured at time 1, follower job satisfaction at time 2, and TOCB at time 3. Results indicate that both empowering and transformational leadership related positively to TOCB through job satisfaction. Aversive leadership was related negatively to TOCB. Also, leadership was mediated by job satisfaction in negatively relating to team anticitizenship behavior. The implications and directions for future research are discussed.

In what many call the postindustrial age, more and more organizations face high velocity environments which are characterized as dramatically changing, uncertain, and high-risk (Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988; Riolli-Saltzman & Luthans, 2001). In such a dynamic environment, many organizations find the use of teams efficient and productive (LePine, Erez, &Johnson, 2002). For example, a recent survey found that most Fortune 1,000 firms use teams with at least some employees and that teams are one of the fastest growing forms of employee 1 This study was supported by the Institute of Management Research of Seoul National University, Korea and by Grants from the R. H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland.

We dedicate this paper to our latecolleague Sabrina Salam.Yun et al./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 172International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145involvement (Lawler, Mohrman, & Benson, 2001). One type of behavior that may contribute to the effectiveness of teams is team members’ citizenship behavior. Organ (1988) conceptualized organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and defined it as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (p. 4). OCB includes behaviors like helping coworkers who have high workloads, helping newcomers adjust to the organization, and so forth. Since by definition, OCB is not formally rewarded; it is generally considered extrarole behavior. Indeed, in many respects, team citizenship is the essence

of teamwork. Team members’ OCB can indirectly improve team performance through promoting the effective functioning of the team (Organ, 1988). They can cumulatively lubricate the work process(Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2005; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983).

The purpose of this study is to investigate how to build team organizational citizenship behavior (TOCB). This study examined how TOCB relates to leadership and job satisfaction. More specifically, we investigated whether leader behavior influenced TOCB directly and/or indirectly through job satisfaction. Even though many studies on OCB have been conducted atthe individual level (e.g., Lee & Allen, 2002; LePine et al., 2002; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002), there has been less research of citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis (some exceptions include Pearce & Giacalone, 2003; Pearce & Herbik, 2004; Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997; Raver & Gelfand, 2005). Nonetheless, the examination of OCB at the individual level of analysis implicitly assumes the aggregation of individuals’ citizenshipbehavior to some higher-level group (Organ, 1988; Pearce & Giacalone).

Thus, we have taken the natural next step and have examined citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis.

The paper is structured as follows. First, the following section offers a theoretical background for our study. We begin by presenting a review of relevant literature on leadership and citizenship behavior. We then propose team citizenship to be a consequence of leadership, possibly mediated by job satisfaction. We describe the research method: a longitudinal field study over three periods of data collection in which team leadership was measured at time 1, job satisfaction of team members at time 2, and TOCB at time 3. Next, we present the results of the study. To conclude, we discuss the implications of our findings.LeadershipThis study conceptualized leadership along five archetypes on the basis of literature review. Our theoretical view of leadership was inspired by Manz and Sims and colleagues (e.g., Cox & Sims, 1996; Manz & Sims, 1991, 2001; Pearce et al., 2003; Scully, Sims, Olian, Schnell, & Smith, 1994). Their typology originally included four archetypes. In this paper, we developed extended versions of their archetypes including aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leadership archetypes. We selected this typology because it is firmly grounded in the current transactional/transformational leadership paradigm (e.g., Bass,

1985; Burns, 1978) yet extends historically to aversive and directive leadership and, morerecently, to empowering leadership.INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 173International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145Aversive LeadershipThe first type of leader influence is through the use of aversive methods such as punishment, reprimand, and intimidation. Aversive leadership has long been an important topic of leadership (e.g., Arvey & Ivancevich, 1980; Ball, Trevino, & Sims, 1994). Aversive leadership mainly focuses on their followers’ poor work and wrong or unacceptable behaviors.

Directive LeadershipThe next archetype is directive leadership which might be considered an older, traditional view of leadership. This archetype represents a highly directive leadership style (e.g., Schriesheim, House, & Kerr, 1976). Directive leadership represents a prototypical boss who engages in a highly directive style (e.g., Schriesheim et al.). Relying on a formal position in theorganization; directive leaders make decisions, give instructions and commands, and expect followers to carry out the decisions. Based on their own judgment, directive leaders command subordinates and expect their compliance. They clarify followers’ roles and tasks and provide instructions (Howell & Costley, 2001).

Transactional LeadershipTransactional leadership emphasizes the constructing and clarifying of the reward contingencies for subordinates. Transactional leaders engage in instrumental exchange relationships with subordinates by negotiating and strategically supplying rewards in return for achievement of goals. Transactional leadership is based on a rational exchange relationshipbetween leader and subordinate (Bass, 1985; Howell & Costley, 2001). The leader articulates what behaviors are required and what will be rewarded and provides feedback to the subordinate about his or her behavior. The subordinate, in turn, complies with these behavior requirements if rewards are desired.

Transformational Leadership

The transformational leader leads by inspiring and stimulating followers and by creating highly absorbing and motivating visions (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987; Burns, 1978; Conger, 1989; Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000; House, 1977; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie,Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Transformational leaders utilize behaviors such as charisma and intellectual stimulation to induce performance of subordinates beyond expectations. Transformational leaders develop a vision and motivate their followers to strive for this vision. Also, they encourage followers to challenge the status quo to be able to pursue that vision.Yun et al./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 174International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145

Empowering LeadershipEmpowering leadership represents a significant paradigm shift and emphasizes follower self-influence rather than external, top-down influence (e.g., Manz & Sims, 1990, 1991). Leaders who use empowering behaviors believe that followers are an influential source of wisdom anddirection. These leaders emphasize self-influence; self-management; self-control; or, to use Manz and Sims’ (1990, 1991) term, self-leadership. Historical perspectives that were instrumental for the development of empowering leadership variables are behavioral selfmanagement(e.g., Mahoney & Arnkoff, 1978), social learning theory (e.g., Bandura, 1997), and cognitive behavior modification (e.g., Meichenbaum, 1977). Empowering leadership creates followers who are effective self-leaders. Self-leadership, in turn, involves developing actions and thought patterns that we use to influence our own behavior. Several recent studies (Ahearne,Matthieu, & Rapp; 2005; Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, in press; Manz & Sims, 1987; Pearce & Sims, 2002, Pearce, Yoo, & Alavi, 2004; Yun, Cox, & Sims, 2006; Yun, Faraj, & Sims, 2005) have recognized empowering leadership as distinct from transformational leadership. Pearce et al.(2003) developed a leadership typology based on literature review and analysis of three samples, and argued that empowering leadership is distinct from transformational leadership.

Citizenship BehaviorOCB

Organ (1988) defined OCB as “behavior [by the employee] that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (p. 4). Noting that discretionary behaviors vary in the likelihood with which they will be rewarded, Organ (1988) viewed OCBs as “non-required contributions that are regarded by the person as relatively less likely to lead along any clear, fixed path to formal rewards” (p. 5). Hence, the incentive for employees to engage in OCB is not any kind of immediate extrinsic reward. However, Organ (1988) acknowledged that OCB canhave a beneficial cumulative effect for an individual and that the individual may consider these long-term benefits. OCB can also benefit organizations directly and/or indirectly. Examples of directly beneficial OCB include volunteerism, assistance between coworkers, unusual attendance orpunctuality, and active participation in organizational affairs (Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ, 1990). Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) stressed the cumulative, indirect benefits of OCB for “lubricat[ing] the social machinery of the organization” (p. 654). They linked OCB to spontaneous behavior that “goes beyond role prescriptions”" (p. 653). Katz (1964) considered such behavior essential for strong organizational social systems. The organization gains a measure of systemic resiliency from these small, spontaneous acts of selfless sensitivity, cooperation, and uncompensated contribution.INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 175International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145

AnticitizenshipPuffer (1987) defined negative or noncompliant behaviors as “non-task behaviors that have negative organizational implications” (p. 615). This is a type of behavior that has been related to general job satisfaction (Fisher & Locke, 1992). Based on preliminary research, Fisher and Locke developed an inductive taxonomy of negative behavioral responses to job dissatisfaction. Subsequent research built on this initial item pool categorized the items into dimensions and developed ratings of the relative “badness” of the items. Dimensions from the Fisher and Locke taxonomy were later conceptualized as examples of anticitizenship behavior (ACB).It is possible that OCB and ACB; while negatively correlated; may be separate, coexisting dimensions that range from zero to some positive quantity. Accordingly, reduced OCB need not necessitate a corresponding

increase in ACB. The absence of OCB, for example, might only signal passivity with respect to positive citizenship. ACB, however, involves activebehaviors that have specific negative implications for the organization. Ball, Trevino, and Sims (1994) found a substantial negative (-.60) correlation between OCB and ACB, but their factor analysis supported the conceptual distinctness of these two classes of behavior. This finding offers preliminary support for the separate dimensionalities of OCB and ACB.

Citizenship as a Team AttributeWhile OCB has been extremely important in the traditional organization, the movement toward team-based organizations raises the question of whether OCB can be viewed as an internal team attribute. Citizenship is interactive or social in nature; OCB is typically an act of one person toward another or others. Thus, most OCB can be conceptually extended toward the team level. In addition, the examination of OCB at the individual level of analysis implicitly assumes the aggregation of individuals’ behavior to some higher-level group (Organ, 1988, 1994; Pearce & Giacalone, 2003). Recognizing this, this study examined the effects of leadership on team OCB. TOCB is conceptualized as team members’ citizenship behavior toward other team members as a whole. It is conceptualized as a team level construct in this study. Thus, in this research, we take the natural next step and examine citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis.HypothesesThis study addresses the question: how do we generate TOCB? There are certainly many ways in which TOCB appears in employees and teams. Among several possible antecedents, we propose and empirically test that leadership can influence TOCB directly and/or indirectly through job satisfaction. Job satisfaction has long been a central construct in the study of behavior in organizations. Cranny, Smith, and Stone (1992) stated that “there seems to be general agreement that job satisfaction is an affective (that is, emotional) reaction to a job that results from the incumbent’s comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired (expected, deserved, and so on)” (p. 1). Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (p. 1300).Yun et al./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 176International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145

Fisher and Locke (1992) pointed out that research has failed to establish a relationship between job satisfaction and specific behavioral criteria such as turnover or absenteeism. They attributed this result to the attempt to predict specific behaviors from job satisfaction. Behavior measures, they argued, should match the generality of the attitude measure. Further, both developed responses to job satisfaction that are cognitive in nature and affect rather than need based. Citizenship behavior has these characteristics. On similar grounds, Organ (1988) commented on the difficulties in finding a relationship between job satisfaction and performance and hinted that this is because performance has been too narrowly defined and proposed the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB. He (1988) also argued that in most research studies, OCB has been ignored though constituting animportant part of performance. In a study by Bateman and Organ (1983), a relationship between OCB and job satisfaction was found. Also, Organ and Konovsky (1989) conducted a study in which they tried to predict OCB from both affective and cognitive components of job satisfaction. The study involved the appraisal of jobs and pay by employees. Results showed thatpay cognitions were a significant predictor of altruism and OCB as well as compliance behavior.

Another study that has found a relationship between job satisfaction and OCB was conducted by Gibbs, Rosenfeld, and Javidi (1994). They studied the relationship between job-related behavior/disposition, trait communication apprehension, its effect on satisfaction with differentaspects of the job, and further job satisfaction’s effects on citizenship behavior. They stated that a relationship was “found between workers’ job satisfaction and their self-reported demonstration of organizational citizenship behaviors” (p. 216). Some researchers have studied job satisfaction at the group or organizational level and have demonstrated that organizational level job satisfaction is positively related to organizationallevel performance (e.g., Currall, Towler, & Judge, 2005; Harter & Schmidt, 2002; Schneider, Hanges, Smith, & Salvaggio, 2003). Currall et al. provided theoretical justification of collective job satisfaction based on multilevel theory (Morgeson & Hoffmann, 1999). Morgeson and Hoffmann (1999) suggested that individual action and attitude does not exist in a vacuum andcollective structures can occur through a process termed double interact where one employee makes a statement to which another employee responds. In turn, the first employee responds back. As a result, collective attitudes can be developed. Following this argument, we examine job

satisfaction as a collective construct and suggest that job satisfaction at the team level is positively related to TOCB.

In summary, research has amply demonstrated that job satisfaction is one determinant of OCB (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). One reason that research has been successful in establishing this relationship is because OCB has been defined as an aggregate of behavior, a general type of behavior which is congruent with the general attitude of job satisfaction. In this study, we also suggest that job satisfaction is more likely to increase TOCB and decrease TACB.

H1: Job satisfaction is positively related to TOCB and negatively related to TACB.In this manuscript, we suggest leadership as an antecedent of TOCB. Organ (1988) has argued that leader fairness induces OCB because a social exchange relationship develops between employees and their supervisors. Leaders’ fair behavior is reciprocated by employees’ OCB. Konovsky and Pugh (1994) tested the relationship between OCB and social exchange andconcluded that “the role of trust in a supervisor as a mediator of the relationship betweenINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 177International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145 procedural justice and OCB, suggests that citizenship behaviors occur in a context in which social exchange characterizes the quality of superior-subordinate relationships” (p. 666).Therefore, leadership that elicits feelings of trust and is associated with perceptions of procedural justice will elicit OCB in their employees.Previous research linking supervisor behavior to OCB has been at the individual level.The key to inducing OCB in employees is trust in the leader caused by leaders’ fair behavior. What happens if we move to the team level? Leader fairness will still be important. But, if trust and fairness are the keys to OCB, why not induce such feelings from a source other than the leader? Perhaps, members of a team who engage in highly interactive tasks, where one person’s actions are effected by and affect another person’s actions, are more likely to trust each other and perceive fairness as a necessary norm for productive and efficient interaction on a team. If so, they are more likely to induce OCB through effective interaction with each other. Therefore,

leadership that promotes teamwork, promotes lateral accountability among team members, and gives power to the team will be efficient in fostering TOCB. Podsakoff et al. (1990) proposed that transformational leadership will have a positive effect on citizenship behavior. The defining characteristic of the transformational leader is to inspire, and this enthusiasm can sometimes be translated into a commitment to the group. Also,transformational leadership develops and provides vision that team members pursue together. This vision can motivate team members to work together. Transformational leaders motivate their followers to work for the team’s future, not only for their current jobs. The vision they provide can facilitate teamwork among team members. In other words, team members undertransformational leaders are more likely to engage in extra-role behaviors to achieve their shared goals or visions provided by leaders. Therefore, we hypothesize a positive relationship between transformational leadership and TOCB and a negative relationship between transformational leadership and TACB. We also hypothesize that transformational leadership is positively related to job satisfaction, as previous studies have found (e.g., Bass, 1985; Hater & Bass, 1988; Howell & Frost, 1989; Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995; Ross & Offermann, 1997; Sosik, 1997). Alternatively, this leadership style may indirectly influence OCB through job satisfaction.

H2: Transformational leadership is positively related to job satisfaction.H3a: Transformational leadership is positively related to TOCB and negatively relatedto TACB.

H3b: Transformational leadership is indirectly, positively related to TOCB andindirectly, negatively related to TACB.

Empowering leadership was hypothesized to be positively related with both job satisfaction and TOCB and negatively related to TACB. First, empowering leadership is likely to increase satisfaction because empowering leaders encourage followers to work independently, unrestrictedly, and harmoniously with coworkers. This leadership is more likely to fit with thechanging expectation of today’s employees. They increasingly view their jobs as a means of personal fulfillment, not just a paycheck (Sims & Manz, 1996). They increasingly expect more control and influence over their own jobs and decision making. Empowering leadership is more likely to meet this expectation since it emphasizes follower self-initiative.

H4: Empowering leadership is positively related to job satisfaction.Yun et al./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 178International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145If the leader is a real empowering leader, he or she recognizes the potential of the followers to be self-leaders as well as the importance of the team process, interaction, and collaboration among the members in the team-based context. This recognition makes the empowering leader emphasize teamwork, collaboration, or interaction among team members aswell as individual self-initiative in doing their work. Also, empowering leaders influence followers to recognize the importance of teamwork, interaction, collaboration, or extra-role behaviors which can make teamwork more harmoniously in the team-based context. Thus, empowering leaders can increase team citizenship behaviors directly or indirectly through jobsatisfaction.

H5a: Empowering leadership is positively related to TOCB and negatively related to TACB.

H5b: Empowering leadership is indirectly, positively related to TOCB and indirectly, negatively related to TACB.

Some types of leadership may not be able to promote employee satisfaction and OCB.For instance, leaders who behave in an arbitrary and capricious way, like aversive leaders, are less likely to develop a sense of team commitment and positive affective response from followers. Further, aversive leaders may indeed generate active resistance that breeds TACB. That is, we propose that aversive leader’s behaviors such as threat and intimidation may generatenegative affective response which, in turn, generates behaviors such as complaining and withdrawal. Therefore, we hypothesize that this leadership style is negatively related to job satisfaction and TOCB. Alternatively, job satisfaction may mediate the effect of aversive leadership on TACB.

H6: Aversive leadership is negatively related to job satisfaction.

H7a: Aversive leadership is negatively related to TOCB and positively related to TACB.

H7b: Aversive leadership is indirectly, negatively related to TOCB and positively related to TACB through job satisfaction.

Similarly, directive leadership was assumed to be negatively related to job satisfaction and OCB. Directive leaders are those who dictate or direct their followers regarding tasks. They seize the situation, and their subordinates are passively expected to follow the leaders. This leadership style is less likely to fit the changing expectation of today’s employees who increasingly view their jobs as a means of personal fulfillment, not just a paycheck (Sims & Manz, 1996). They increasingly expect more control and influence over their own jobs and decision making. Directive leadership, as well as aversive leadership, is contradictory to this changing expectation. Therefore, directive leadership has a negative relationship with job satisfaction. Also, since directive leaders mainly assign goals regarding tasks and instruct andcommand their followers, they make subordinates focus. Therefore, followers are less likely to engage in extra-role behaviors. Alternatively, directive leadership indirectly influences OCB through job satisfaction.

H8: Directive leadership is negatively related to job satisfaction.H9a: Directive leadership is negatively related to TOCB and positively related toINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 179International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145TACB.

H9b: Directive leadership is indirectly, negatively related to TOCB and positively related to TACB through job satisfaction.

The relationship between transactional leadership and TOCB seems unclear. At the individual level, contingent reward patterns of leadership may create perceptions of a fair exchange and good will which, in turn, may produce a

positive citizenship response. However, reward policies can sometimes generate only calculating compliance such that individuals do only what they are paid to do. Under these conditions, compliance may not extend into good citizenship or extra-role behaviors. Transactional behavior may be neutral at best, perhaps even deleterious when it comes to TOCB. Therefore, we did not develop specific hypotheses regarding transactional leadership and TOCB.

However, we hypothesized a positive relationship between transactional leadership and job satisfaction. This type of leadership emphasizes contingent reward which may create perceptions of a fair exchange which, in turn, may produce job satisfaction. Followers clearly understand what they are expected to do and what they will get as a result of their performance.In other words, transactional leaders eliminate uncertainty that their followers may encounter in their job. Therefore, we hypothesized a positive relationship between job satisfaction and transactional leadership.

H10: Transactional leadership is positively related to job satisfaction.MethodParticipants and SettingData gathered in this study were part of field research conducted at a large defense firmlocated in the mid-Atlantic United States. The sampling unit consisted of (a) the leader (midlevelmanagers or supervisors) and (b) the main focal unit, the team (direct report subordinates of theleader). The original sample consisted of 526 subordinates and 73 leaders. After attrition andaggregation to the team level, a final sample of 45 teams resulted with full data across all threetime periods.Team members averaged 40 years in age (SD = 10.8) and had worked in the hostorganization for an average of 14 years (SD = 9.51), 4 of which were spent with their presentsupervisor (leader). In addition, responding team members were predominantly male andgenerally well educated, having completed a bachelors degree with some additional postcollege

training. Quantitative data were collected in three waves. There were 10 weeks between the firstand second waves and 20 weeks between the second and third waves.MeasuresLeader behaviors. Perceptions of leader behavior were collected using the short versionof the Leadership Strategies Questionnaire II (LSQII) at time 1. The LSQII was an extendedversion of the Leadership Strategies Questionnaire (LSQ) used most recently by Scully et al.(1994) and Ball et al. (1994). The instrument, however, is deeply rooted in a long line of leaderbehavior measures (Cox & Sims, 1996). All items were measured using a five-point responseYun et al./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 180International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145format [1 (definitely not true), 2 (not true), 3 (neither true nor untrue), 4 (true), 5 (definitelytrue)].An exploratory factor analysis using maximum likelihood rotation provided a five-factorsolution which supported our theoretical typology of five leadership types (see Table 1). Thissolution is similar to that found by Pearce et al. (2003). As Tabachnick and Fidell (2001)suggested, factor scores were estimated through the regression approach rather than averagingthe items. Factor loadings were used as item weights to create factor scores. This approach wasrecommended in order to cope with multicollinearity issue (Basilevsky, 1994). These five factorscores were used as variables for further analysis. The leadership variables were aversive,directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering.For each leadership variable; we utilized the James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984)

coefficient (rWG(J)) to assess team member consensus within a team and confirm the within-unitaggregatability of the data. All rWG(J) were larger than .70 which is considered evidence ofwithin-group consensus (George, 1990). Table 1 also shows the internal reliabilities and rWG(J).Job satisfaction. The job satisfaction measure was measured with 6 items which wereadapted from Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) Job Diagnostic Survey. Participants responded toeach item using a five-point scale [1 (very dissatisfied), 2 (slightly dissatisfied), 3 (neutral), 4(slightly satisfied), 5 (very satisfied)]. Examples items include “My job as a whole. . .” and “Thefeeling of worthwhile accomplishment I get from doing my job. . . .” Cronbach’s alpha was usedto assess internal consistency and was found to be in the acceptable range (.94). The James et al.(1984) coefficient was .70.Citizenship behavior. Team member perceptions of TOCB and TACB were measuredwith 13 items, a short form of the Team Citizenship Questionnaire (TCQ; Ball et al., 1994). TheTCQ was a variation of a citizenship behavior questionnaire by Ball et al. (1994) that the authorssuccessfully used to demonstrate relationships between supervisor punishment incidents andsubordinate citizenship. Ball et al.’s questionnaire was based on an earlier OCB measure byPodsakoff et al. (1990) that was validated in a large-scale field study. The factor analysisproduced a two-factor solution, TOCB and TACB. Table 2 shows the factor analysis resultsalong with alpha coefficients and James et al. (1984) coefficients which were larger than .70.Table 1. The Results of the Factor Analysis of LeadershipFactor names/ Factor loadingsItem content I II III IV V CommunalitiesTransformational leadership

He/she is not afraid to “break the mold” to find different ways of doing things. .82 .16 .18 -.04 -.05 .53He/she isn't bound by tradition when it comes to getting things done. .82 .17 .16 .01 -.07 .56He/she isn't afraid to “buck the system” if he/she thinks it is necessary. .80 .13 .15 .05 -.06 .68He/she is a non-traditional type who "shakes up the system" when necessary. .70 .07 .06 .22 -.06 .74He/she challenges established ways of doing things. .70 .05 .17 .10 .03 .72He/she strives towards higher purposes or ideals. .70 .23 .15 -.04 .16 .59He/she has a strong personal dedication to higher purposes or ideals. .65 .25 .18 -.08 .14 .55He/she provides a clear vision of who and what we are. .63 .25 .24 -.09 .18 .56Because of him/her, I have a clear vision of our organization. .59 .32 .20 .08 .22 .55He/she is driven by higher purposes or ideals. .57 .23 .17 -.03 .19 .50He/she provides a clear vision of where we are going. .55 .22 .26 -.13 .19 .62He/she provides his/her vision of our organization to me. .48 .33 .26 .03 .14 .70Empowering leadershipHe/she urges me to work as a team with other mangers/supervisors who report to him/her. .14 .82 .15 .03 .17 .74He/she encourages me to work together with other managers/supervisors who report to him/her. .21 .81 .16 .04 .13 .74He/she advises me to work together with other managers/supervisors who report to hem/her as a team. .21 .79 .09 -.01 .17 .43He/she advises me to coordinate my efforts with other managers/supervisors who report to him/her. .21 .71 .15 -.02 .22 .54He/she has a strong conviction in his/her own beliefs and ideals. .10 .67 .13 -.05 .16 .56He/she urges me to search for solutions to my problems on the job without his/her supervision. .22 .64 .26 -.10 -.15 .57He/she advises me to solve problems when they pop up without always getting his/her stamp of approval. .23 .63 .23 -.20 -.21 .53He/she advises me to make improvements in how I do my work on my own initiative without being toldto do so..33 .58 .30 -.03 -.04 .70

He/she encourages me to find solutions to my problems at work without seeking his/her direct input. .24 .57 .10 -.06 -.17 .61He/she urges me to assume responsibilities on my own. .30 .55 .30 -.10 -.06 .67Transactional leadershipIf I perform well, he/she will recommend more compensation. .22 .13 .80 -.09 .06 .68He/she will recommend that I am compensated more if I perform well. .23 .13 .78 -.09 .84 .55He/she will recommend that I am compensated well if I perform well. .24 .12 .76 -.10 .02 .61He/she gives me positive feedback when I perform well. .21 .35 .70 -.03 .09 .64His/her recommendations regarding my compensation depend on my performance. .20 .12 .69 -.08 .06 .62He/she commends me when I do a better-than-average job. .22 .36 .68 -.09 .14 .40He/she gives me special recognition when my work performance is especially good. .31 .20 .67 -.07 .11 .48When I do a job well, he/she tells me about it. .21 .39 .64 -.06 .15 .66Table 1. The Results of the Factor Analysis of LeadershipFactor names/ Factor loadingsItem content I II III IV V CommunalitiesAversive leadershipHe/she reprimands me when my performance is not up to par. .02 .15 .07 .72 .09 .68He/she can be quite intimidating. .05 -.14 -.19 .71 .08 .54I feel intimidated by his/her behavior. -.04 -.27 -.35 .70 .10 .72He/she behaves in a threatening manner. -.08 -.30 -.34 .69 .04 .44He/she reprimands me if my work is below standard. -.05 .19 .14 .67 .10 .43He/she tries to influence me through threat and intimidation. -.09 -.35 -.29 .67 .07 .47He/she is often critical of my work, even when I perform well. -.06 -.31 -.36 .61 .07 .50When my work is not up to par, he/she points it out to me. .17 .24 .27 .61 .15 .58I frequently am reprimanded by him/her without knowing why. -.11 -.32 -.30 .57 -.08 .60He/she lets me know about it when I perform poorly. .10 .20 .18 .55 .06 .67

He/she often displeased with my work for no apparent reason. -.08 -.38 -.37 .46 .07 .66Directive leadershipHe/she establishes my performance goals. -.02 .15 .09 .05 .78 .64He/she sets the goals for my performance. -.02 .08 .08 .05 .78 .55He/she establishes the goals for my work. .03 .13 .11 .10 .75 .52He/she established my goals for me. .04 -.06 .02 .01 .74 .55He/she gives me orders about my work. .09 -.10 -.12 .38 .56 .39When it comes to my work, he/she gives me instructions on how to carry it out. .30 .28 .18 .14 .51 .51He/she provides commands in regard to my job. .19 -.10 .02 .32 .45 .36He/she gives me instructions about how to do my job. .25 .10 .34 .12 .39 .35Eigenvalue 14.29 5.93 3.22 2.64 2.12Reliability .80 .82 .74 .77 .74James et al. (1984) coefficients .70 .69 .65 .70 .69Table 2. The Results of the Factor Analysis of Team Organizational Citizenship BehaviorsFactor names/ Factor loadingsItem content I IICommunalitiesTOCBMy colleagues consider the impact of their actions on coworkers. .82 -.19 .70My colleagues work together as a team. .80 -.30 .73My colleagues work together. .79 -.29 .71My colleagues try to avoid creating problems for coworkers. .73 -20 .57My colleagues are mindful of how their behavior affects other people’s jobs. .73 -.18 .56My colleagues willingly help others who have work-related problems. .71 -.22 .56My colleagues help orient new people even though it is not required. .68 -.23 .52TACBMy colleagues take frequent or extra long breaks to avoid doing work. -.24 .82 .73My colleagues make frequent and/or long trips to the water fountain, vending machines, orrestroom to avoid work.-.27 .77 .66My colleagues tend to “make mountains out of molehills.” -.30 .77 .67

My colleagues focus on what’s wrong, rather than the positive side. -.17 .74 .57My colleagues avoid their jobs by coming in late or leaving early. -.23 .73 .58My colleagues consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters. -.19 .71 .54Eigenvalue 6.34 1.77Intraclass correlation .19 .36James et al. (1984) coefficients .90 .84Yun et al./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 184International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145ResultsTable 3 contains means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelation matrix ofall variables. We utilized path analysis as our main approach to test our hypotheses. Three sets ofordinary least squares regressions were conducted (see Table 4 and Figure 1). First, TOCB andTACB were separately regressed against the set of leadership styles and job satisfaction. Second,job satisfaction was regressed against leadership.Table 3. Correlations among VariablesM SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)(1) Aversiveleadershipa -.03 .61(2) Directiveleadershipa .03 .58 .05(3) Transactionalleadershipa .05 .53 -.14 .05(4) Transformationalleadershipa .03 .70 .14 -.12 -.10(5) Empoweringleadershipa .09 .50 -.01 -.12 .02 .07(6) Job satisfaction 3.65 .57 -.18 -.05 -.01 .24* .25*(7) TOCB 3.57 .61 -.30* -.15 .06 -.05 -.04 .31*(8) TACB 2.31 .59 -.15 .22 -.10 -.36** -.29* -.46** -.35**

a These variables (factor scores) are estimated through the regression analysis at the individual level andaggregated to the group level.* p < .05. ** p < .01, one-tailed.Hypothesis 1 concerned the effects of job satisfaction on TOCB and TACB. The resultsshowed that job satisfaction was positively related to TOCB (ß = .38, α < .05), and jobsatisfaction is negatively related to TACB (ß = -.35, α < .05). Thus, hypothesis 1 was supported.Both transformational leadership and empowering leadership had a positive influence onjob satisfaction (ß = .21, α < .05; ß = .23, α < .05). Thus, hypotheses 2 and 4 were supported.The multiple regression analyses showed no direct effects of transformational leadership(hypotheses 3a and 3b) or empowering leadership on TOCB and TACB (hypotheses 5a and 5b). Insummary, the results in Table 4 show that transformational and empowering leadership have anindirect, positive effect on TOCB (.08 = .21 * .38, .09 = .23 * .38, respectively). Furthermore,job satisfaction has an indirect, negative influence on TACB (-.07 = .21 * -.35, -.08 = .23 * - .35,respectively) also through job satisfaction (hypotheses 3b and 5b).The Table 4 results also indicate that aversive leadership is directly, negatively related tojob satisfaction (ß = -.17, α < .10; hypothesis 6). Thus, hypothesis 7a was supported. That is,aversive leadership was directly, negatively related to TOCB (ß = -.22, α < .10). There was alsoan indirect, negative effect of aversive leadership on TOCB (-.06 = -.17 * 38). Results provideno support for the direct, positive relationship between aversive leadership and TACB(hypothesis 7b). However, the indirect effect of aversive leadership on TOCB and TACB (.06 = -INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 185International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University

ISSN 1554-3145.17 * -.35), was supported. On the basis of these results, we can conclude that aversiveleadership has both direct and indirect negative effects on TOCB and an indirect, positive effecton TACB through job satisfaction.The results demonstrate that there is no significant effect of directive leadership on jobsatisfaction, TOCB, and TACB. Hypotheses 8, 9a, and 9b were not supported. Also, transactionalleadership did not affect job satisfaction (hypotheses 8 and 10).Table 4. Results of Regression AnalysisDependent variablesJob satisfaction TOCB TACBJob satisfaction .38 (.16)* -.35 (.14)**Aversive leadership -.17 (.10)* -.22 (.13)* -.16 (.12)Directive leadership .02 (.11) -.15 (.13) .12 (.12)Transactional leadership .00 (.12) .08 (.17) -.24 (.16)Transformationalleadership.21 (.09)* -.18 (.14) -.18 (.12)Empowering leadership .23 (.11)* -.10 (.14) -.12 (.12)R2 .16 .23 .25F 2.52* 2.04* 3.53**Note. Unstandardized coefficients with standard errors are in parentheses.*p < .05. **p < .01, one-tailed.Finally, the overall results are summarized by the path diagram in Figure 1. Note thatwhile aversive leadership works directly on TOCB, both transformational leadership andempowering leadership influence both TOCB and TACB indirectly through job satisfaction.DiscussionThe purpose of our study was to examine how leadership relates uniquely to TOCB. Jobsatisfaction was tested as a possible mediator. George and Bettenhausen (1990), whoinvestigated prosocial behavior (a broader class of behavior that includes a form of OCB at the

group level of analysis), stated that “research in this area [prosocial and citizenship research] hasbeen focused on prosocial behavior at the individual level of analysis, with very few exceptions”(p. 699). They concluded that it is meaningful to study phenomena like citizenship behavior andother types of prosocial behavior at the group level of analysis.Previous research has linked leader behaviors such as fairness, consideration, andparticipation as evoking OCB at the individual level. In this study, we tested whether variousforms within a leadership typology also related to TOCB. We also tested the mediating role ofjob satisfaction (Organ, 1988). In general, our study supports the idea that leader behaviors affectTOCB both directly as well as indirectly through job satisfaction, and different types of leaderbehaviors were formed to influence both TOCB and TACB. The results indicate that onlyaversive leadership has both direct as well as indirect relationships to TOCB as expected.Finally, both transformational leadership and empowering leadership have indirect effects toTOCB and TACB through job satisfaction.Yun et al./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 186International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145Figure 1. Path diagram, the influence of leadership on job satisfaction and citizenship.It is easy to explain the negative effects of aversive type behavior on TOCB. AsMcCroskey and Richmond (1979) explained it, “if people are forced to do something they don’tlike, it follows they will be less satisfied than will other people” (p. 59). Also, the aversive leaderwill not produce unhappy employees and cause employees to do only as much as they have to do

and nothing extra. As the power is in the hands of the aversive leader, employees do the work forhim or her; hence, only the absolute minimum will be worked for a person who behavesarbitrarily and capriciously.Transactional leadership has no effect on job satisfaction, but transformational leadershipdid have a positive effect which is consistent with previous studies that found an augmentingcapacity of transformational leadership (e.g., Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995; Sosik, 1997; Sosik,Avolio, & Kahai, 1997; Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1990). The results for thetransformational leader and empowering leader are very straightforward. They influence TOCBthrough increasing the team member’s job satisfaction. Overall, we conclude that job satisfactiondoes have an influence on TOCB apart from leadership.Practical ImplicationsBased on these results, leaders might be encouraged to use both transformationalleadership and empowering leadership in order to make the group effective. Leaders have toprovide vision which their followers can agree on and pursue together to enhance job satisfactionAversive leadershipDirective leadershipTransactional leadershipTransformational leadershipEmpowering leadershipJob satisfactionTOCBTACB-.17*.21*.38*-.22*-.35**.23*INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 187

International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145and TOCB. Also, they need to empower their followers. By empowering their followers, leaderscan make followers more satisfied with their jobs and enhance their TOCB.If leaders engage in aversive leadership, it is likely to reduce followers’ job satisfactionand TOCB. Aversive leadership style hurts team process in two ways. First, it directlysuppresses TOCB because followers mainly focus on their own tasks. In other words, they areengaged in micromanagement, not extra-role behaviors. Also, it indirectly influences TACB. Inother words, aversive leadership increases team members’ negative behavior which is not relatedto a task but to group process. Therefore, leaders should not display aversive leadership.In summary, organizations using team-based structures should encourage leaders toengage in transformational and empowering leadership and avoid aversive leadership. To do so,they need to develop training programs which emphasize these forms of leadership. Also,transformational and empowering leadership capability should be considered a factor inpromotion to positions that entail leadership responsibilities.LimitationsOne limitation that is cited in many research studies that try to identify causalrelationships is the issue of reverse causality. It might be that a team who behaves in a verycooperative manner and exhibits TOCB causes satisfaction in the team members and causes theleader to engage in behavior that gives even more power to the team. This might simply be dueto the observation by the leader that the team is capable of carrying that responsibility. Scully etal. (1994) addressed reciprocal causality in their paper “Tough times make tough bosses.” They

argued that the leader’s environment, specifically the performance of a leader’s unit, affects theway a leader will behave. If performance is low, authoritarian behavior will be exhibited; ifperformance is high, more participative type of behaviors will be used. This might also be thecase when a leader is guiding a team. The research reported here has the advantage of a timelaggedarrangement of variables which enhances the capability to infer causality.Another limitation is that our study measured all the variables from team members,possibly leading to same source bias. However, our study had a longitudinal design whichsomewhat reduces this bias by measuring different variables in different waves. In addition,aggregation reduces the effect of same source bias. Nevertheless, future study using differentdata sources are required.We found that job satisfaction mainly mediates the effects of leadership on TOCB.However, different time lags might cause different results. There were 20 weeks betweenmeasuring job satisfaction and TOCB. Leadership style was measured 30 weeks beforemeasuring TOCB. Therefore, the difference of time lag may enhance the effect of jobsatisfaction but reduce the effect of leadership on TOCB when they are consideredsimultaneously. However, the direct effect of aversive leadership on TOCB shows that thislimitation may not have a high effect on our results. However, future study has to deal with thisissue.ConclusionThis study sets itself apart from traditional research on OCB because we focused onTOCB. Very little research on this behavioral construct has been done at the group level ofanalysis (George, 1990; George & Bettenhausen, 1990). Our results demonstrate that there is a

Yun et al./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 188International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145need for further research at the group level of analysis because different processes might existdue to the different kinds of interdependencies that exist in teams. This becomes even morerelevant since more and more organizations are moving toward a team-based structure.Our results suggest that transformational and empowering leadership are the mosteffective types for the guidance of teams. All other leadership styles either had no effects (as indirective and transactional leadership) or a negative effect (as in aversive leadership) on TOCB.Indeed, the research significantly supports the notion that both transformational and empoweringleadership can enhance teamwork through the influence of job satisfaction.About the AuthorsDr. Seokhwa Yun is an assistant professor at the College of Business Administration at SeoulNational University. He received his Ph.D. in management from the Robert H. Smith School ofBusiness, University of Maryland, College Park. Areas of research interest include leadership,top management teams, employees’ extra-role behaviors, impression management, expatriationissues, and knowledge management. His work has been featured in journals such as Academy ofManagement Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,and International Journal of Human Resource Management.E-mail: syun@snu.ac.krDr. Jonathan F. Cox is a consultant with MRE Consulting, Inc.; serving clients in the energy andenergy services industries. He earned his Ph.D. in industrial/organizational psychology from the

University of Maryland. Dr. Cox’s areas of expertise include leadership, teamwork, projectmanagement, and organizational change management. His work has been featured in Journal ofApplied Psychology, Group and Organization Management, Advances in the InterdisciplinaryStudy of Work Teams (JAI Press), and other publications.E-mail: jcox@mre-consulting.comDr. Henry P. Sims, Jr. is professor of management and organization at the Robert H. SmithSchool of Business, University of Maryland, College Park. He earned his Ph.D. from the Collegeof Business, Michigan State University. His area of research is leadership and teams. He haspublished 7 books and over 130 articles in such journals as Journal of Applied Psychology,Academy of Management Journal, and Administrative Science Quarterly.E-mail: hsims@rhsmith.umd.eduDr. Sabrina Salam received her Ph.D. from the Robert H. Smith School of Business, Universityof Maryland, College Park. Unfortunately, Dr. Salam lost her life in a tragic automobileaccident. Her colleagues mourn her passing.INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 189International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145ReferencesAhearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force?An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior oncustomer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 945-955.Arvey, R. D., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1980). Punishment in organizations: A review, propositions,and research suggestions. Academy of Management Review, 5, 123-132.Ball, G. A., Trevino, L. K., & Sims, H. P. (1994). Just and unjust punishment: Influences on

subordinate performance and citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 299-322.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.Basilevsky, A. (1994). Statistical factor analysis and related methods. New York: Wiley.Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadershipand the falling dominoes effect. Group and Organization Studies, 12, 73-78.Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationshipbetween affect and employee “citizenship.” Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595.Bourgeois, L. J., & Eisenhardt, K. (1988). Strategic decision processes in high velocityenvironments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science, 34, 816-835.Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Conger, J. A., Kanungo, B. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and followereffects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 747-767.Cox, J. F., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1996). Leadership and team citizenship behavior: A model andmeasures. In M. M. Beyerlein & D. A. Johnson (Eds.), Advanced in interdisciplinarystudies of work teams (pp. 1-14). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Cranny, C. J., Smith, P. C., & Stone, E. F. (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel about theirjobs and how it affects their performance. New York: Lexington Books.Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,16(2), 297-334.

Currall, S. C., Towler, A. J., & Judge, T. A. (2005). Pay satisfaction and organizationaloutcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, 613-640.Ensley, M. D., Hmielski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (in press). The importance of vertical andshared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for theperformance of startups. Leadership Quarterly.Farh, J., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenshipbehavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management,16(4), 705-721.Fisher, C. D., & Locke, E. A. (1992). A new look in job satisfaction research and theory. In C. J.Cranny, P. C. Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds.), Job satisfaction: How people feel about theirjobs and how it affects their performance. New York: Lexington Books.George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 75, 107-116.Yun et al./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 190International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance,and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology,75(6), 698-709.Gibbs, V. L., Rosenfeld, L. B., & Javidi, M. (1994). On-the-job relationships among selfreportedoral communication apprehension, job satisfaction, and organizationalcitizenship behavior. Communication Research Reports, 11(2), 209-220.Hackman, J. R, & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Harter, J. K., & Schmidt, F. L. (2002). Business unit level relationship between employee

satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87, 268-279.Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions oftransformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695-702.House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson(Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Howell, J. P., & Costley, D. L. (2001). Understanding behaviors for effective leadership (1stedition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 243-269.Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (1999). The changing nature of performance: Implications forstaffing, motivation, and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.James, L., Demaree, R., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability withand without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85-98.Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246-255.Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131-133.Katzell, R. A., Thompson, D. E., & Guzzo, R. A. (1992). How job satisfaction and jobperformance are and are not linked. In C. J. Cranny, P. C. Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds.),Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance.New York: Lexington Books.Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on

teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 16, 319-333.Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy ofManagement Journal, 37(3), 656-669.Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Benson, G. (2001). Organizing for high performance:Employee involvement, TQM, reengineering, and knowledge management in the Fortune1000: The CEO report. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: Therole of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142.LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality oforganizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87, 52-65.INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 191International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: RandMcNally.Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates oftransformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLGliterature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.Mahoney, M. J., & Arnkoff, D. B. (1978). Cognitive and self-control therapies. In S. L. Garfield& A. E. Borgin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and therapy change (pp. 689-722).New York: Wiley.Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external

leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106-129.Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1990). SuperLeadership: Leading others to lead themselves.New York: Berkeley Books.Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1991). SuperLeadership: Beyond the myth of heroic leadership.Organizational Dynamics, 19, 18-35.Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2001). The new superleadership: Leading others to leadthemselves.McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1979). The impact of communication apprehension onindividuals in organizations. Communication Quarterly, 27, 55-61.Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification: An integrative approach. NewYork: Plenum Press.Morgeson, F. P., & Hoffmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs:Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of ManagementReview, 24, 249-265.Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Organ, D. W. (1994). Personality and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal ofManagement, 20(2), 465-478.Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants oforganizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 157-164.Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2005). Organizational citizenshipbehavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Pearce, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (2003). Teams behaving badly: Factors associated with anticitizenshipbehavior in teams. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 58-75.

Pearce, C. L., & Herbik, P. A. (2004). Citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis: Theeffects of team leadership, team commitment, perceived team support, and team size.Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 293-310.Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2002). Vertical vs. shared leadership as predictors of theeffectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive,transactional, transformational and empowering behaviors. Group Dynamics, 7(2), 172-197.Pearce, C. L, Sims, H. P., Jr., Cox, J. F., Ball, G., Schnell, E., Smith, K. A., Trevino, L. (2003)Transactors, transformers and beyond: A multi-method development of a theoreticaltypology of leadership. Journal of Management Development, 22(4), 273-307.Pearce, C. L., Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2004). Leadership, social work and virtual teams: Therelative influence of vertical vs. shared leadership in the nonprofit sector. In R. E. RiggioYun et al./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 192International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145& S. Smith-Orr (Eds.), Improving leadership in nonprofit organizations (pp. 180-203).San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behaviorand the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,82, 262-270.Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformationalleader behaviors and their effects on trust, satisfaction, and organizational citizenshipbehaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizationalcitizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature andsuggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563.Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and work performance amongcommission sales people. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 615-621.Raver, J. L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2005). Beyond the individual victim: Linking sexual harassment,team processes, and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 387-400.Riolli-Saltzman, L., & Luthans, F., (2001). After the bubble burst: How small high-tech firmscan keep in front of the wave. Academy of Management Executive, 15, 114-124.Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of personalityattributes and work group performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,23(10), 1078-1086.Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, andcounterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturingapproach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66-80.Schneider, B., Hanges, P. J., Smith, D. B., & Salvaggio, A. N. 2003. Which comes first:Employee attitudes or organizational financial and market performance? Journal ofApplied Psychology, 88, 836-851.Schriesheim, C. A., House, R. J., & Kerr, S. (1976). Leader initiating structure: A reconciliationof discrepant research results and some empirical tests. Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 15, 197-321.Scully, J. A., Sims, H. P., Jr., Olian, J. D., Schnell, E. R., & Smith, K. A. (1994). Tough timesmake tough bosses: A meso analysis of CEO leader behavior. Leadership Quarterly,

5(1), 59-83.Sims, H. P., Jr, & Manz, C. C (1996). Company of heroes: Unleashing the power of selfleadership.New York: Wiley & Sons.Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its natureand antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663.Sosik, J. J. (1997). Effect of transformational leadership and anonymity on idea generation incomputer-mediated groups. Group and Organization Management, 22, 460-487.Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity ongroup potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment.Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 89-103.Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2000). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: PearsonAllyn & Bacon.Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent-rewardbehavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group & OrganizationStudies, 15, 381- 394.INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 193International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145

The Five-Factor Model of Personality in the WorkplaceSean P. Neubert

Rochester Institute of Technology

This paper investigates the correlation and validity of the five-factor model with job performance and other job-related activities. Motivation, deviation, absences, and job satisfaction are related to the five factors. Conscientiousness and agreeableness appear to be positively correlated with productivity in a team environment among peers and are more likely to aid in being selected for a job. Neuroticism and agreeableness are negatively correlated with leadership capabilities. Individuals who score high on

conscientiousness tend to perform well at work, whereas individuals lacking conscientiousness and having neuroticism tend to perform poorly at work.

This is a review of the relation between the five-factor model of personality and performance in the workplace. Research in this field has yielded correlations between the five-factor model and aspects of job performance such as motivation, deviation, job satisfaction, and teamwork.

Motivation in the WorkplaceStudies of sales representatives have defined two aspects of motivation--status striving and accomplishment striving--and they are correlated with extraversion and conscientiousness, respectively. These two subsets of motivation lead to sales performance, although the data imply that status striving leads to performance and accomplishment striving leads to performance only indirectly via a relation between accomplishment striving and status striving (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002). This study is questionable in that it studied sales representatives, who are likely required to be extraverted in order to succeed at their job. To say that extraverted sales representatives perform better is a bit redundant; shy sales people do not go far. Because extraversion is such an integral aspect of being a salesperson, this study does not lend much support for a general model or theory correlating the five-factor model with job performance.

Job Satisfaction

The five-factor model is correlated with overall level of job satisfaction experienced by employees. In general, satisfied employees are more likely to remain in a position and to avoid absences than are dissatisfied employees.

Initial research indicated that neuroticism is negatively correlated with job satisfaction, whereas conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness are positively correlated with job satisfaction. Openness to experience has a negligible impact on job satisfaction. Additional research, however, has only been able to replicate correlations among the factors of neuroticism and extraversion, with extraversion being positively correlated with job satisfaction and neuroticism being negatively correlated. This could be due to the social nature of the workplace (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002).

This finding may be due to the low level of arousability for extraverted individuals (Hebb's theory). If the workplace is a social environment, then extraverted employees are more likely to be at a low level of arousal while at work, whereas at their home there is less stimulation. Introverts, on the other hand, are more likely at their optimal level of arousal outside of the workplace, where there is less stimulation, and therefore are more likely dissatisfied with the level of stimulation that they experience while at work.

Deviation in the Workplace

Workplace deviance occurs when an employee voluntarily pursues a course of action that threatens the well-being of the individual or the organization. Examples include stealing,

hostile behavior towards coworkers, and withholding effort. Stealing and withholding effort are categorized as organizational deviance, whereas hostile and rude behavior toward coworkers are categorized as interpersonal deviance.

Workplace deviance is related to the five-factor model of personality. Interpersonal deviance is negatively correlated with high levels of agreeableness. Organizational deviance is negatively correlated with high levels of conscientiousness and positively correlated with high levels of neuroticism. This implies that individuals who are emotionally stable and conscientious are less likely to withhold effort or steal, whereas those who are agreeable are less likely to be hostile to their coworkers.

Another entirely different factor to consider is perception of the workplace. Employees who had a positive perception of their workplace were less likely to pursue deviant behavior. Research indicates that personality acts as a moderating factor: workplace deviance was more likely to be endorsed with respect to an individual when both the perception of the workplace was negative and emotional stability, conscientiousness, or agreeableness was low (Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004).

Performance in the WorkplaceOf the five factors, the single factor of conscientiousness is the most predictive of job performance (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000).

Absences

Job absence is very much a part of job performance: employees are not performing effectively if they do not even come to work. Introverted, conscientious employees are much less likely to be absent from work, as opposed to extraverted employees who are low on conscientiousness. Interestingly enough, neuroticism is not highly correlated with absence (Judge, Martocchio, & Thoresen, 1997). The Judge et al. (1997) study is interesting considering the Judge et al. (2002) research on job satisfaction and the five-factor model. The results of the latter research suggests that extraverted individuals are more satisfied in the workplace, because work gives them an opportunity to experience an optimal level of arousal, whereas introverted individuals are less satisfied in the workplace due to too much stimulation. Combining the results of these two studies suggests that conscientiousness is the deciding factor regarding job absence.

Perhaps another factor in absenteeism is that, although introverts may be less satisfied in the workplace, they go to work anyway. This behavior might imply either that introverts are more conscientious or simply that introverts have no compelling reason not to go to work (whereas extraverts may have friends who urge them to skip work and go see a movie). This conclusion is debateable, however, because introverts might be tempted to skip work to avoid the extra stimulation and might perhaps stay home and read a book (a book on psychology, no doubt). Judge and his colleagues will likely continue their research and perhaps provide answers in the future.

Teamwork

Oftentimes in the workplace the ability to be a team player is valued and is critical to job performance. Recent research has suggested that conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness are all related to cooperative behavior but that they are not related to task performance. Although this fortifies the case that job performance is related to the five-factor model via increased cooperativeness among coworkers, it lays siege to the role of personality by implying that actual job performance (task performance) is related to cognitive ability and not to personality (LePine & Dyne, 2001).

Leadership abilities are often essential in the workplace, especially for individuals who aspire to move up into the ranks of management. Studies of Asian military units have found that neuroticism is negatively correlated with leadership abilities. Contrary to what the researchers hypothesized, agreeableness is negatively correlated with leadership abilities as well. Openness to experience is unrelated to leadership abilities, but extraversion is positively correlated with leadership abilities (Lim & Ployhart, 2004). This evidence is consistent with the long-standing idea that in teams there are leaders and there are followers; the leaders make decisions and the followers abide by them. Although agreeableness is positively correlated with working with a team, it is negatively correlated with being a leader. Those followers who do not always agree and are willing to voice their own opinions end up moving up the ranks, whereas those who blindly agree are left as followers.

Personnel Selection

Research into the relation between the five-factors model and personnel hiring provides additional evidence that conscientiousness is the most valid predictor of job performance (Schmidt & Ryan, 1993). Given that conscientious individuals have a tendency to perform better as employees, it is easy to believe that employers will seek out that factor or the traits that coincide with it.

SummaryJob performance and personality (as measured in the five-factor model) are related. It appears that the relation between job performance and the five factors is more a consequence of the social aspects of the workplace than of ability. Research indicates that cognitive ability is more strongly correlated with task performance than any of the five factors are correlated with task performance. The five factors are strongly correlated with cooperating with others and enjoying the overall workplace experience, which are key components of long-term job success. Being absent from work or working as a team are correlates of personality that directly affect whether one will succeed in the workplace, and they are strongly correlated with the Big Five and not with cognitive ability.

It is worth noting that the majority of research has been on sales or other occupations in which interacting with people is required. Is it possible that these studies are skewed? Perhaps researching individuals in jobs that require very little human interaction (such as authors of fiction, like Steven King) would yield different results.

Conscientiousness and extraversion are the two aspects of the five-factor model that are always correlated with positive job performance, although conscientiousness is more positively correlated (extraversion is negatively correlated with job performance in that it appears to inspire more absence, but only when combined with low levels of conscientiousness). Agreeableness is negatively correlated with job performance within a leadership role. Openness to experience, in general, is unrelated. Neuroticism is negatively correlated with job performance.

Cognitive ability may allow an employee to complete a specific task, but the ability to work with others and to stay motivated are aspects of personality. The five-factor model is a valid predictor of workplace performance. Personality is an indispensable consideration for employers looking for quality employees.

Peer Commentary

The Five-Factor Model and Job PerformanceTimothy M. Howell

Rochester Institute of Technology

"The Five-Factor Model of Personality in the Workplace" by Sean P. Neubert clearly showed a large correlation between elements of the five-factor model and job performance. But what is not entirely clear is what types of jobs show increased performance, and more importantly which types show little or no correlation. As stated by the author, most if not all studies on this topic were preformed on sales jobs or other jobs highly dependent on interaction with others. With a wider variety of research, an equally wide array of results might occur. Much of the research also seems to look at traits as either on or off, in that certain traits that seem to have negative effects on a certain aspect of job performance could be positive in lower amounts.

The author rightly stated that the five-factor model's relation to job performance is most likely due to the social aspects of the workplace rather than an individual's ability. Cognitive ability is the major factor in job performance, and outside of jobs that are based on social interaction, the model's effect is merely a product of background environment in the workplace. The social aspects of most jobs are unnecessary to the actual work one is required to do. Granted this social aspect can almost never be removed--and is a must for many people due to personal needs for interaction--the model will have its affect in a large number of cases.

In a large company, I believe that the five-factor model has much less impact. With a larger company usually comes an impersonal relation between employee and employer. This means that as long as employees have all the required cognitive abilities, provided they have a job that does not involve teamwork or customer interaction, they will perform just as well as those who have a favorable personality. In a smaller company, by contrast, the relation between employee and employer is usually much more personal, and in some cases the line between employee and employer is very small. In this case a non-favorable

personality could have a very large effect on a person's job performance. Cognitive ability seems to be a concrete factor in all cases, but the effects of personality on job performance seem to vary greatly depending on the importance or prevalence of social situations in the workplace.

The research cited on the five-factor model seemed to consider someone as either having a factor or completely lacking it. This is most obvious in the statement that agreeableness is negatively correlated with job performance in leadership positions. I agree that an unusually large level of agreeableness, such that one would allow oneself to be "used as a door mat," would have a negative effect on leadership performance, but the trait is definitely necessary to succeed as a leader. If one's boss were completely disagreeable, would one willing follow his or her requests, or would one do everything in one's power to slow or impede the completion of one's assigned work? A good leader needs to be well-rounded in all the "positive" social aspects of the five-factor model, without any traits being so pronounced as to reduce performance, such as high levels of agreeableness impeding one's will to put forth one's own ideas.

The author cited many interesting points, and I agree with most of his conclusions. I would like to see more research on a boarder range of professions to truly see how large a role the five-factor model plays in one's job performance. I thought that certain aspects of the model could be further explored to reveal varying level of certain factors being more or less influential on job performance. The five-factor model may be a good indicator of job performance, but I am not convinced that it is as big of a factor as the author portrayed.

Peer Commentary

How Good Teamwork Leads to Job SatisfactionAndrew Z. Milinichik

Rochester Institute of Technology

Good teamwork is essential to job satisfaction. If workers are a part of properly functioning teams, then they feel that they are needed. Furthermore, along with the sense of belonging is a sense of accomplishment. Team members need to feel that they are actually contributing to the collective goal of the team. If a team member feels as though he or she is doing trivial work while others are doing more meaningful work, then team unity will deteriorate. This is a situation in which the team leader needs to step in and properly distribute tasks so that each team member is challenged by his or her assignments. Leaders with proper skills in motivation, who stimulate and challenge subordinates, are referred to as transformational leaders.

Transformational leadership consists of four constructs: charisma or idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Lim & Ployhart 2004). These are leaders whose teams always outperform everybody else. These types of leaders are the ones whom everyone wants to be like or to have on their

team. How do transformational leaders relate to job satisfaction? Transformational leaders take time to answer the questions of an individual worker. They make the worker feel needed. When team members feel as though they are needed by the team, they are more likely to be satisfied with their job. Transformational leaders act toward other employees like coaches and mentors, and many times are seen more as the person with all the answers then as a a higher-ranking employee. The transformational leader does not have to be the appointed leader either. The transformational leader can be a normal team member with all the traits of a transformational leader, acting to mitigate the diminishing effect that a non-transformational leader has on the team.

Transformational leaders also contribute to workers' sense of accomplishment. When an employee goes to a transformational leader with a problem, not only does the leader take the time to help the worker on a one-to-one level but also pushes the worker to achieve the most with the solution. Another important quality of transformational leaders is modesty. When commended on a job well done, a transformational leader oftens directs the credit to his or her workers. This lets the workers know that they are valued, which also contributes to their sense of accomplishment.

Overall, transformational leaders not only seek to improve the functioning of the team by using only the brightest individuals but also work with all staff members to improve their skills. The transformational leader knows that teams are often together for only a single project. Thus, by helping the individual feel needed, the transformational leader gives him or her a sense of accomplishment when the goal is reached. More importantly, the transformational leader instills confidence in his or her employees. This translates into not only better job satisfaction for employees but also better productivity for the company.

Peer Commentary

How Much Does Personality Influence Job Performance?Kory Sinha

Rochester Institute of Technology

A person's personality may not necessarily have a very high impact on a person's job or productivity per se, depending on the type of work being done. As discussed by Sean P. Neubert, the notion that salespeople who exhibit high levels of extraversion will have better overall job performance is pretty evident, for being a salesperson requires a lot of social interaction, and an introverted salesperson would obviously be less effective than an extravert. Given that point, another point brought up is about conscientiousness in addition to extraversion and its positive correlation with job performance in terms of the social atmosphere present in most workplaces: a conscientious person is obviously more likely to be a more productive worker and an extraverted person will experience an optimal level of arousal in a social workplace. Personality influence would perhaps become less palpable if an individual's place of work is not a highly social arena or the job is non-traditional.

If one's job does not require constant or high levels of social interaction, then one's cognitive ability can become a much greater factor. Depending on the type of job one holds, one's personality may have very little impact on the quality of work being done or other job performance indicators. As mentioned by Neubert, a job such as a writer may not necessarily require high levels of extraversion. Other types of jobs that do not require direct social interaction are probably similar in terms of cognitive abilities or other factors affecting overall job performance.

Openness to experience has not been shown to correlate significantly with job performance. This may seem counterintuitive, because openness to experience is sometimes also referred to intellect, and cognitive ability and intellect are presumably related. One's openness to experience should be indicative of creativity and originality; consequently, there may be a direct but unobvious connection to job performance in terms of creating and trying new things that may improve personal productivity or otherwise maybe even affect general productivity on a greater scale--for example, a new way of doing things may improve operation of an entire company. Openness would also then tie into working with other people--for example, a person who is more open to experience would be willing to try out new and different ideas presented by coworkers. Openness may not relate to job performance due to limitations in the methodology of past research, lack of a high enough correlation to reach statistical significance, or even perhaps because there really is no direct relation between openness to experience and overall job performance.

People's personalities obviously have an impact on many, many things that they do, if not everything. How profound the effect of personality is on job performance depends of course on the unique facets of an individual's personality. Does personality have a great impact on overall productivity in a social workplace? Yes, it does. Cognitive ability, however, has been shown to be more positively correlated to actual task performance. From this fact, one can argue that personality comes into play again, because if one is unwilling to perform the task and lacks conscientiousness, then the job will not get done, regardless of potential ability. Social aspects of many traditional work environments may overshadow some other unseen factors that affect overall workplace productivity. More research needs to be conducted on other types of work environments.

Peer Commentary

The Five-Factor Model is Not Enough to Explain Successful Job PerformanceNoah J. Stupak

Rochester Institute of Technology

Although job performance may be related to the personality factors of conscientiousness, agreeableness, and extraversion, these measure only whether a person will show up to work and get along with his or her co-workers. Although important in the workplace, the more important concept of task performance is only briefly mentioned in the paper "The

Five-Factor Model of Personality in the Workplace." In the eyes of management and human resources professionals, a worker who is able efficiently to finish tasks is much more valuable to a company than a worker who is everyone's friend. Therefore, the goal of any worthwhile workplace study is successful performance.

Although only mentioned in a few sentences in the paper, cognitive ability is one of the few, if not only, predictors of successful completion of tasks. Cognitive ability plays a significant role in jobs that require decision-making and individual work. It is obvious that more intelligent persons will be able to complete tasks assigned to them faster and better than less intelligent co-workers. Because of their success at the tasks assigned to them, intelligent workers will be able quickly to rise up the corporate ladder to positions suitable to their skills.

The second and equally important predictor of long-term career performance is emotional intelligence. Employees who are the best in their field, whether it is psychology, law, medicine, engineering, or banking, are not just good at their jobs and friendly with their co-workers. They are resilient, optimistic, and confident. Thus, it takes more than traditional cognitive intelligence to be successful at work--it also takes emotional intelligence, the ability to restrain negative feelings such as anger and self-doubt, and instead focus on positive ones such as confidence and optimism. Emotional intelligence is positively correlated with happiness at work, life success, and career salaries. This shows a strong relation between personality and workplace success. People with more emotional intelligence are more successful at work.

Finally, the fields of work that the paper discussed are very narrow. Depending on the job, each of the five factors could be the most important. For example, a highly neurotic accountant who fusses over every detail would be an extremely beneficial addition to a company. A person high in openness to experience would succeed easily in a job that places the person in a variety of situations, such as actor, doctor, or soldier. Extraversion would really only be positive in a job that requires a lot of interpersonal contact; in jobs that are mostly based on individual tasks, the importance of extraversion would be negligible.

Finally, the paper neglected to mention creativity as having a viable place in the workplace. Creative people at work are often the most useful. The creative worker is the one who will innovate and try to move the company forward or come up with new ideas for products. Creative workers will also come up with solutions that other people might not consider. A creative solution could potentially save a company vast resources, including money, manpower, and supplies. In jobs that involve independence, like artists, designers, advertisers, and inventors, creativity is intrinsically necessary to the profession.

Author Response

The Combination of Conscientiousness and Cognitive AbilitySean P. Neubert

Rochester Institute of Technology

I would like to thank the authors of the peer commentaries for providing good points for discussion with regards to my paper. Among the commentaries there appeared to be a consensus that cognitive ability is a more crucial factor than personality in workplace performance. Although it is indeed true that cognitive ability has been more strongly correlated with completing a specific task, every study has found that conscientiousness is strongly correlated with workplace performance. Conscientious employees are less likely to be absent from work and are less likely to steal from the organization. Although cognitive ability relates strongly to the ability of an employee, conscientiousness relates strongly to how an employee applies that ability.

Howell reiterated that most of the research has been on persons who are in work environments that require interaction, and that research into different professions, which may not require so much interaction, may lead to different results. Despite over a decade of research regarding this topic, there is not a prolific number of studies that have attempted to find differing degrees of influence of personality in separate professions. Every research sample has included sales representatives, convenience store clerks, managers, or another occupation that requires social interaction. Future studies should address this issue by looking at occupations that allow telecommuting and professions that do not require working with other people directly.

Sinha questioned why openness to experience has not been positively correlated with workplace performance. Studies have found positive correlations between this trait and performance, but the findings were not replicated universally, nor were they strong enough to be beyond chance.

Stupak suggested that emotional intelligence plays a key role in workplace performance, whereas the five-factor model is not important for measuring actual performance. Although emotional intelligence may be a part of workplace performance, research indicating positive correlations between workplace performance and conscientiousness have been more abundant.

Milinichik elaborated on the role of transformational leaders within a team environment. If I were to revise my paper, I would include this topic.

This paper was an attempt to find correlations between personality and work performance. With research on this topic spanning only the past 10 years, this is a relatively new field of research. Although the question of whether different professions are affected differently by the personality of an employee is a question for future research, current data conclusively indicate that conscientiousness and cognitive ability are two characteristics of an employee that strongly predict positive workplace performance.

ReferencesBarrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43-51.

Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599-609.

Hochwater, W. A., Witt, L. A., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Perceptions of organizational politics as a moderator of the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 472-478.

Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879.

Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. (1997). Five-factor model of personality and employee absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 745-755.

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-Factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530-541.

LePine, J. A., & Dyne, L. V. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326-336.

Lim, B., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational leadership: Relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 610-621.

Last modified November 2004Visited times since November 2004Comments?

Home to Personality Papers

Home to Great Ideas in Personality

LEADERSHIP THEORIES AND STUDIES

Ads by GoogleJC Smith Revealed - NASA admitting CLA has no connection to NASA. - JCSmithRevealed.com Business Leadership - Learn tasks and tools for effective Leaders - Register for our courses! - EffectiveManagement.co.za/Leader LyChron, LLC - Preclinical CRO with PET/CT Medical Device, Biotech, Pharma - www.lychron.com Succession Leadership Tool - Download powerful HR software. Free to evaluate. Create Org Charts. - www.successionwizard.com

Leadership can be defined as a process by which one individual influences others toward the attainment of group or organizational goals. Three points about the definition of leadership should be emphasized. First, leadership is a social influence process. Leadership cannot exist without a leader and one or more followers. Second, leadership elicits voluntary action on the part of followers. The voluntary nature of compliance separates leadership from other types of influence based on formal authority. Finally, leadership results in followers' behavior that is purposeful and goal-directed in some sort of organized setting. Many, although not all, studies of leadership focus on the nature of leadership in the workplace.

Leadership is probably the most frequently studied topic in the organizational sciences. Thousands of leadership studies have been published and thousands of pages on leadership have been written in academic books and journals, business-oriented publications, and general-interest publications. Despite this, the precise nature of leadership and its relationship to key criterion variables such as subordinate satisfaction, commitment, and performance is still uncertain, to the point where Fred Luthans, in his book Organizational Behavior (2005), said that "it [leadership] does remain pretty much of a 'black box' or unexplainable concept."

Leadership should be distinguished from management. Management involves planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling, and a manager is someone who performs these functions. A manager has formal authority by virtue of his or her position or office. Leadership, by contrast, primarily deals with influence. A manager may or may not be an effective leader. A leader's ability to influence others may be based on a variety of factors other than his or her formal authority or position.

In the sections that follow, the development of leadership studies and theories over time is briefly traced. Table 1 provides a summary of the major theoretical approaches.

Table 1 Leadership Perspectives

Historical Leadership Theories Leadership Theory

Time of Introduction

Major Tenets

Trait Theories 1930s Individual characteristics of leaders are different than those of nonleaders.

Behavioral Theories

1940s and 1950s

The behaviors of effective leaders are different than the behaviors of ineffective leaders. Two major classes of leader behavior are task-oriented behavior and relationship-oriented behavior.

Contingency Theories

1960s and 1970s

Factors unique to each situation determine whether specific leader characteristics and behaviors will be effective.

Historical Leadership Theories Leadership Theory

Time of Introduction

Major Tenets

Leader-Member Exchange

1970s

Leaders from high-quality relationships with some subordinates but not others. The quality of leader-subordinates relationship affects numerous workplace outcomes.

Charismatic Leadership

1970s and 1980s

Effective leaders inspire subordinates to commit themselves to goals by communicating a vision, displaying charismatic behavior, and setting a powerful personal example.

Substitutes foe Leadership

1970s Characteristics of the organization, task, and subordinates may substitute for or negate the effects of leadership behaviors.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

Three main theoretical frameworks have dominated leadership research at different points in time. These included the trait approach (1930s and 1940s), the behavioral approach (1940s and 1950s), and the contingency or situational approach (1960s and 1970s).

TRAIT APPROACH.

The scientific study of leadership began with a focus on the traits of effective leaders. The basic premise behind trait theory was that effective leaders are born, not made, thus the name sometimes applied to early versions of this idea, the "great man" theory. Many leadership studies based on this theoretical framework were conducted in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s.

Leader trait research examined the physical, mental, and social characteristics of individuals. In general, these studies simply looked for significant associations between individual traits and measures of leadership effectiveness. Physical traits such as height, mental traits such as intelligence, and social traits such as personality attributes were all subjects of empirical research.

The initial conclusion from studies of leader traits was that there were no universal traits that consistently separated effective leaders from other individuals. In an important review of the leadership literature published in 1948, Ralph Stogdill concluded that the existing research had not demonstrated the utility of the trait approach.

Several problems with early trait research might explain the perceived lack of significant findings. First, measurement theory at the time was not highly sophisticated. Little was known about the psychometric properties of the measures used to operationalize traits. As a result, different studies were likely to use different measures to assess the same construct, which made it very difficult to replicate findings. In addition, many of the trait studies relied on samples of teenagers or lower-level managers.

Early trait research was largely atheoretical, offering no explanations for the proposed relationship between individual characteristics and leadership.

Finally, early trait research did not consider the impact of situational variables that might moderate the relationship between leader traits and measures of leader effectiveness. As a result of the lack of consistent findings linking individual traits to leadership effectiveness, empirical studies of leader traits were largely abandoned in the 1950s.

LEADER BEHAVIOR APPROACH.

Partially as a result of the disenchantment with the trait approach to leadership that occurred by the beginning of the 1950s, the focus of leadership research shifted away from leader traits to leader behaviors. The premise of this stream of research was that the behaviors exhibited by leaders are more important than their physical, mental, or

emotional traits. The two most famous behavioral leadership studies took place at Ohio State University and the University of Michigan in the late 1940s and 1950s. These studies sparked hundreds of other leadership studies and are still widely cited.

The Ohio State studies utilized the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), administering it to samples of individuals in the military, manufacturing companies, college administrators, and student leaders. Answers to the questionnaire were factor-analyzed to determine if common leader behaviors emerged across samples. The conclusion was that there were two distinct aspects of leadership that describe how leaders carry out their role.

Two factors, termed consideration and initiating structure, consistently appeared. Initiating structure, sometimes called task-oriented behavior, involves planning, organizing, and coordinating the work of subordinates. Consideration involves showing concern for subordinates, being supportive, recognizing subordinates' accomplishments, and providing for subordinates' welfare.

The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio State. Under the general direction of Rensis Likert, the focus of the Michigan studies was to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction. The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations: an employee orientation and a production orientation. Leaders with an employee orientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. Those with a production orientation focused on the task or technical aspects of the job.

The conclusion of the Michigan studies was that an employee orientation and general instead of close supervision yielded better results. Likert eventually developed four "systems" of management based on these studies; he advocated System 4 (the participative-group system, which was the most participatory set of leader behaviors) as resulting in the most positive outcomes.

One concept based largely on the behavioral approach to leadership effectiveness was the Managerial (or Leadership) Grid, developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton. The grid combines "concern for production" with "concern for people" and presents five alternative behavioral styles of leadership. An individual who emphasized neither production was practicing "impoverished management" according to the grid. If a person emphasized concern for people and placed little emphasis on production, he was terms a "country-club" manager.

Conversely, a person who emphasized a concern for production but paid little attention to the concerns of subordinates was a "task" manager. A person who tried to balance concern for production and concern for people was termed a "middle-of-the-road" manager.

Finally, an individual who was able to simultaneously exhibit a high concern for production and a high concern for people was practicing "team management." According

to the prescriptions of the grid, team management was the best leadership approach. The Managerial Grid became a major consulting tool and was the basis for a considerable amount of leadership training in the corporate world.

The assumption of the leader behavior approach was that there were certain behaviors that would be universally effective for leaders. Unfortunately, empirical research has not demonstrated consistent relationships between task-oriented or person-oriented leader behaviors and leader effectiveness. Like trait research, leader behavior research did not consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader behaviors and leader effectiveness.

CONTINGENCY (SITUATIONAL) APPROACH.

Contingency or situational theories of leadership propose that the organizational or work group context affects the extent to which given leader traits and behaviors will be effective. Contingency theories gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s. Four of the more well-known contingency theories are Fiedler's contingency theory, path-goal theory, the Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision-making model of leadership, and the situational leadership theory. Each of these approaches to leadership is briefly described in the paragraphs that follow.

Introduced in 1967, Fiedler's contingency theory was the first to specify how situational factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. The theory suggests that the "favorability" of the situation determines the effectiveness of task- and person-oriented leader behavior.

Favorability is determined by (1) the respect and trust that followers have for the leader; (2) the extent to which subordinates' responsibilities can be structured and performance measured; and (3) the control the leader has over subordinates' rewards. The situation is most favorable when followers respect and trust the leader, the task is highly structured, and the leader has control over rewards and punishments.

Fiedler's research indicated that task-oriented leaders were more effective when the situation was either highly favorable or highly unfavorable, but that person-oriented leaders were more effective in the moderately favorable or unfavorable situations. The theory did not necessarily propose that leaders could adapt their leadership styles to different situations, but that leaders with different leadership styles would be more effective when placed in situations that matched their preferred style.

Fiedler's contingency theory has been criticized on both conceptual and methodological grounds. However, empirical research has supported many of the specific propositions of the theory, and it remains an important contribution to the understanding of leadership effectiveness.

Path-goal theory was first presented in a 1971 Administrative Science Quarterly article by Robert House. Path-goal theory proposes that subordinates' characteristics and

characteristics of the work environment determine which leader behaviors will be more effective. Key characteristics of subordinates identified by the theory are locus of control, work experience, ability, and the need for affiliation. Important environmental characteristics named by the theory are the nature of the task, the formal authority system, and the nature of the work group. The theory includes four different leader behaviors, which include directive leadership, supportive leadership, participative leadership, and achievement-oriented leadership.

According to the theory, leader behavior should reduce barriers to subordinates' goal attainment, strengthen subordinates' expectancies that improved performance will lead to valued rewards, and provide coaching to make the path to payoffs easier for subordinates. Path-goal theory suggests that the leader behavior that will accomplish these tasks depends upon the subordinate and environmental contingency factors.

Path-goal theory has been criticized because it does not consider interactions among the contingency factors and also because of the complexity of its underlying theoretical model, expectancy theory. Empirical research has provided some support for the theory's propositions, primarily as they relate to directive and supportive leader behaviors.

The Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision-making model was introduced by Victor Vroom and Phillip Yetton in 1973 and revised by Vroom and Jago in 1988. The theory focuses primarily on the degree of subordinate participation that is appropriate in different situations. Thus, it emphasizes the decision-making style of the leader.

There are five types of leader decision-making styles, which are labeled AI, AII, CI, CII, and G. These styles range from strongly autocratic (AI), to strongly democratic (G). According to the theory, the appropriate style is determined by answers to up to eight diagnostic questions, which relate to such contingency factors as the importance of decision quality, the structure of the problem, whether subordinates have enough information to make a quality decision, and the importance of subordinate commitment to the decision.

The Vroom-Yetton-Jago model has been criticized for its complexity, for its assumption that the decision makers' goals are consistent with organizational goals, and for ignoring the skills needed to arrive at group decisions to difficult problems. Empirical research has supported some of the prescriptions of the theory.

The situational leadership theory was initially introduced in 1969 and revised in 1977 by Hersey and Blanchard. The theory suggests that the key contingency factor affecting leaders' choice of leadership style is the task-related maturity of the subordinates. Subordinate maturity is defined in terms of the ability of subordinates to accept responsibility for their own task-related behavior. The theory classifies leader behaviors into the two broad classes of task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors. The major proposition of situational leadership theory is that the effectiveness of task and relationship-oriented leadership depends upon the maturity of a leader's subordinates.

Situational leadership theory has been criticized on both theoretical and methodological grounds. However, it remains one of the better-known contingency theories of leadership and offers important insights into the interaction between subordinate ability and leadership style.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

Although trait, behavioral, and contingency approaches have each contributed to the understanding of leadership, none of the approaches have provided a completely satisfactory explanation of leadership and leadership effectiveness. Since the 1970s, several alternative theoretical frameworks for the study of leadership have been advanced. Among the more important of these are leader-member exchange theory, transformational leadership theory, the substitutes for leadership approach, and the philosophy of servant leadership.

LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE THEORY.

Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory was initially called the vertical dyad linkage theory. The theory was introduced by George Graen and various colleagues in the 1970s and has been revised and refined in the years since. LMX theory emphasizes the dyadic (i.e., one-on-one) relationships between leaders and individual subordinates, instead of the traits or behaviors of leaders or situational characteristics.

The theory's focus is determining the type of leader-subordinate relationships that promote effective outcomes and the factors that determine whether leaders and subordinates will be able to develop high-quality relationships.

According to LMX theory, leaders do not treat all subordinates in the same manner, but establish close relationships with some (the in-group) while remaining aloof from others (the out-group). Those in the in-group enjoy relationships with the leader that is marked by trust and mutual respect. They tend to be involved in important activities and decisions. Conversely, those in the out-group are excluded from important activities and decisions.

LMX theory suggests that high-quality relationships between a leader-subordinate dyad will lead to positive outcomes such as better performance, lower turnover, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Empirical research supports many of the proposed relationships (Steers et al., 1996).

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORIES.

Beginning in the 1970s, a number of leadership theories emerged that focused on the importance of a leader's charisma to leadership effectiveness. Included within this class of theories are House's theory of charismatic leadership, Bass's transformational leadership theory, and Conger and Kanungo's charismatic leadership theory.

These theories have much in common. They all focus on attempting to explain how leaders can accomplish extraordinary things against the odds, such as turning around a failing company, founding a successful company, or achieving great military success against incredible odds. The theories also emphasize the importance of leaders' inspiring subordinates' admiration, dedication, and unquestioned loyalty through articulating a clear and compelling vision.

Tranformational leadership theory differentiates between the transactional and the transformational leader. Transactional leadership focuses on role and task requirements and utilizes rewards contingent on performance. By contrast, transformational leadership focuses on developing mutual trust, fostering the leadership abilities of others, and setting goals that go beyond the short-term needs of the work group.

Bass's transformational leadership theory identifies four aspects of effective leadership, which include charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and consideration. A leader who exhibits these qualities will inspire subordinates to be high achievers and put the long-term interest of the organization ahead of their own short-term interest, according to the theory. Empirical research has supported many of the theory's propositions.

SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP THEORY.

Kerr and Jermier introduced the substitutes for leadership theory in 1978. The theory's focus is concerned with providing an explanation for the lack of stronger empirical support for a relationship between leader traits or leader behaviors and subordinates' satisfaction and performance. The substitutes for leadership theory suggests that characteristics of the organization, the task, and subordinates may substitute for or negate the effects of leadership, thus weakening observed relationships between leader behaviors and important organizational outcomes.

Substitutes for leadership make leader behaviors such as task-oriented or relationship-oriented unnecessary. Characteristics of the organization that may substitute for leadership include formalization, group cohesiveness, inflexible rules, and organizational rewards not under the control of the leader. Characteristics of the task that may substitute for leadership include routine and repetitive tasks or tasks that are satisfying. Characteristics of subordinates that may substitute for leadership include ability, experience, training, and job-related knowledge.

The substitutes for leadership theory has generated a considerable amount of interest because it offers an intuitively appealing explanation for why leader behavior impacts subordinates in some situations but not in others. However, some of its theoretical propositions have not been adequately tested. The theory continues to generate empirical research.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP.

This approach to leadership reflects a philosophy that leaders should be servants first. It suggests that leaders must place the needs of subordinates, customers, and the community ahead of their own interests in order to be effective. Characteristics of servant leaders include empathy, stewardship, and commitment to the personal, professional, and spiritual growth of their subordinates. Servant leadership has not been subjected to extensive empirical testing but has generated considerable interest among both leadership scholars and practitioners.

Leadership continues to be one of the most written about topics in the social sciences. Although much has been learned about leadership since the 1930s, many avenues of research still remain to be explored as we enter the twenty-first century.

SEE ALSO: Contingency Approach to Management ; Leadership Styles and Bases of Power ; Management Styles

Tim Barnett

FURTHER READING:

Bass, Bernard M., Bruce J. Avolio, Dong I. Jung, and Yair Berso. "Predicting Unit Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional Leadership." Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (2003): 207–218.

Blank, Warren, John R. Weitzel, and Stephen G. Green. "A Test of the Situational Leadership Theory." Personnel Psychology 43 (1990): 579–597.

Fiedler, Fred E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Graeff, Claude L. "The Situational Leadership Theory: A Critical View." Academy of Management Review 8 (1983): 285–291.

Graen, George, and William Schiemann. "Leader-Member Agreement: A Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach." Journal of Applied Psychology 63 (1978): 206–212.

Greenberg, Jerald, and Robert A. Baron. Behavior in Organizations: Understanding and Managing the Human Side of Work. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000.

House, Robert J. "A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness." Administrative Science Quarterly 16 (1971): 321–339.

House, Robert J., and Ram N. Aditya. "The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis?" Journal of Management 23 (1997): 409–473.

Kirkpatrick, Shelley A., and Edwin A. Locke. "Leadership: Do Traits Matter?" Academy of Management Executive 5 (1991): 48–60.

Kinicki, Angelo, and Robert Kreitner. Organizational Behavior. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2006.

Luthans, Fred. Organizational Behavior. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2005.

Podsakoff, Philip M., et al. "Do Substitutes for Leadership Really Substitute for Leadership? An Empirical Examination of Kerr and Jermier's Situational Leadership Model." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 54 (1993): 1–44.

Steers, Richard M., Lyman W. Porter, and Gregory A. Bigley. Motivation and Leadership at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.

Stogdill, Ralph M. "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature." Journal of Psychology 25 (1948): 335–71.

Stogdill, Ralph M., and Bernard M. Bass. Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research. New York, NY: Free Press, 1974.

Vroom, Victor H., and Phillip W. Yetton. Leadership and Decision Making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973.

Wren, Daniel A. The Evolution of Management Thought. New York, NY: Wiley, 1994.

Yukl, Gary. Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1994.

Read more: Leadership Theories and Studies - organization, system, style, manager, definition, model, type, company, workplace, business, system, Historical development, Recent developments http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Int-Loc/Leadership-Theories-and-Studies.html#ixzz0xVOQubFD